Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 102

Archive 95

←

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Module status letters

I was surprised to find out that the module has no status letter for a withdrawal, or something like "(W) Withdrew". Where do I request the addition of one? --Theurgist (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Theurgist: Module talk:Sports table would be the appropriate venue. However, I will ping Qed237 and CRwikiCA as the primary editors of the module to bring their attention to your question here. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: Thank you for the ping. @Theurgist: The status letters were discussed and based on those used in earlier tables (can be seen in for example Template:Fb cl2 team used before. Some modifications where done and extra letters where added. I have a week memory of proposing "(W) Withdrawn" but we went with only disqualified instead, I think because when a teams is withdrawn the league automatically disqualifies them. I welcome a discussion about this either here or at the module talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like I discussed this briefly with CRwikiCA on User talk:CRwikiCA#Statusletters. Qed237 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Chad withdrew from the AFCON 2017 today. Its status at {{2017 Africa Cup of Nations qualification Group G}} was initially "(E) Eliminated", but I changed it to an ad hoc "(Z) Withdrew". Some time ago, in a related discussion here, I explained why I'm in favour of more ad hoc letters and/or flexible wordings of the existing statuses. --Theurgist (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your previous suggestion was turned down because we can not have letters for everything like "qualified for the final tournament" as in many articles it is not final tournament but "qualified for UEFA Champions League" or "Qualified for promotion play-offs" and so on. For that reason we have "Qualified to the phase indicated" with the tournament and phase in the qualification column. This is an other case with a single letter that might improve the module and with consensus it could easily be added. I have myself missed it on places like Template:2015 A Lyga table where Krouja withdrew. To get the correct tense I would say "Withdrawn" instead of "Withdrew". Qed237 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237 and Theurgist: Perhaps a more in-depth discussion could/should occur at Module talk:Sports table? Personally, I am not opposed to using "(W) Withdrew from competition" in the module, as I'm sure teams have withdrawn from competitions in multiple sports. I note that it is proper to say that a team "withdrew" from a competition (see definition #5); "withdrawn" is used to indicate the removal of an object (e.g. "His savings were withdrawn ...") as opposed to the removal of a subject (e.g. "He withdrew from ..."). — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I never proposed having a letter that would always display "qualified for the final tournament". What I proposed is that the module be allowed to specify the best wordings for each individual article (that's what ad hoc means). Currently, one can assign any wording to the letters (X), (Y) and (Z), but the three of them sometimes turn out to be too few; while all other letters always go with their rigid and unchangeable wordings, which are not always the best possible ones. So, we either need more letters like (X), (Y) and (Z), or need to allow alternative wordings to be assigned to the other letters when necessary.

Besides, why shouldn't we have a "(W) Withdrew" status? However little the module might benefit from such an addition, it certainly does not suffer from it. --Theurgist (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: Looking at the module now I am not sure how consistent we have been, but I have always gone with "They have" i.e. the perfect-form. Then it would be "they have withdrawn" ([1]) just like "they have qualified for...." ([2]). For the other statuses, "They are" has been used as in "They are relegated", "they are promoted" and so on. Also Withdrawn is the Participle of the verb. Qed237 (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Theurgist: It is an ongoing discussion, so no need to make any changes yet. Qed237 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not very active any more, but will add my two cents. Technically speaking it is fairly straightforward to change to code to include any letter and allow custom overwriting for all of them. It was set up with a finite number like this, because the old templates used to be like that. The only "risk" with too much in terms of customization that has come up in prior discussion is the fact that tables would not have a consistent format anymore. Whether that is a positive or a negative is up to consensus opinion. Adding the W, as suggested, does not seem like a problem to me. CRwikiCA talk 17:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

National team captain boxes

Wendroa (talk · contribs) has been adding captain boxes to articles. Isn't there consensus that they should be avoided? SLBedit (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, yes. To illustrate the pointlessness of this, the succession box would have to include players handing over the armband during matches if it were to be properly complete. Number 57 17:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree exactly with the above. There was a discussion a few months ago, which was an overwhelming no. Here and also here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. GiantSnowman 18:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

List of England international footballers (alphabetical)

There is a problem with this list, apart from its size. The list includes 1213 players; at present Danny Drinkwater has not been included so with him that makes 1214. The Category:England international footballers includes 1218 names, whereas the England stats website has 1216 names. Can anyone find the missing names from the list and spot the names in the category which shouldn't be there? 92.26.170.223 (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I pasted the full list from the englandstats website into a spreadsheet. There were 1214, not 1216, which is consistent with the WP list without Drinkwater, so there are no missing names. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed John Forster Alcock from the category - this is now down to 1217. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Skënder Gega was created by copypasting from another page and its creator never fixed the categories, so that's 1216. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

And John Coleman (footballer, born 1881) is the same chap as the longstanding and properly named Tim Coleman. Seeing as its creator is atill about, @Ilikeeatingwaffles:, do you fancy merging anything from your version into the pre-existing one and then redirecting him? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

And Edward Copeland was the last, so once the Colemans are merged, we'll have 1214. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you. Struway2 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys for sorting that out so quickly. My figure of 1216 for the total on the Englandstats website came because, as Drinkwater is profile number 1217, and there is no player #1, I assumed that the difference of 1216 was the number of players on the database. I now see that #1207 & #1208 were never used (I guess they were allocated to players who were called into a squad but never played). 92.26.170.223 (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Arsenal FC has been taken over by two editors

In five edits (673696376, 673696758, 674666568, 674667156, and 674667637) on 29th Jul and 5th Aug 2015, the editor Sport and politics introduced a bunch of regional trophies, reserve trophies, and friendlies to Arsenal FC's honours section. The only prior friendly trophy was also introduced by the same editor three years before. One editor, Davefelmer, spotted the five edits a couple of weeks later and reverted them. Sport and politics and Qed237 then started an edit war, instead of discussing the changes on the talk page. Eventually, Davefelmer opened a topic on the talk page, where a third editor pitched in, and the discussion showed no consensus. Multiple editors since then have tried to revert the changes, but Sport and politics and Qed237 have vigilantly fought them, repeatedly claiming they had consensus behind these edits. After the most recent attempt at discussion, Sport and politics wiped the whole talk page. Apparently this was 'to start new discussions', even though this one had clearly reached no consensus.

As a result, we are stuck with these trophies Sport and politics unilaterally introduced. I have stayed out of this so far, but the project should really know about it. My vote is that we revert the trophies section to before she added these ones and the project can have a healthy discussion about what trophies should be included on a major football club's article. Possibly someone should report these two editors for edit warring.

Madshurtie (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The honours seem perfectly appropriate – they are all notable competitions (the fact that they are local or regional is irrelevant to their inclusion). The arguments on the talk page that (a) the club's website doesn't include them or that (b) FIFA, UEFA or the FA don't list them so neither should we are ridiculous. Although I usually have my reservations about the behaviour of Sport and politics and Qed, I think they were right on this occasion. Number 57 13:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The honours are all legitimate. The arguments by Dave Felmer were also brought here and universally reverted from several clubs where he had applied his logic. This is a no brainer, we are not here to say a trophy won 100 years ago is not notable. Koncorde (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

For reference, btw, Here are archive discussions from WP:FOOT about this same / similar subject Unsourced club honours, man Utd - Liverpool Rivalry, Porto records, Confusion about honours, all within the last 6 months. Each time editors came down on the side of inclusion. Koncorde (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the other discussions, I wasn't aware of them. I am curious why basically every other Premier League club seems to only list FA, FIFA, UEFA trophies. I would have felt those organizations provide a reasonable standard for inclusion, but I see others like Struway2 seem to think that's inappropriate for the early history of football. If you lot also approve of the changes, then I guess I should apologise to Sport and politics and Qed237 for this section. Madshurtie (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

In the end the articles are maintained by their own editors and they have their own criteria for inclusion. The consensus is that they can be included and that there is no reason to remove them, however there is no consensus to say that we must go through every article and add them - but feel free. In the end it's an historical resource. Koncorde (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My view in short is "if they are sourced, there is no reason to remove them" and especially if there is no consensus saying that they should be removed. Qed237 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Section splitting

@Sport and politics, Qed237, Number 57, and Koncorde: Sport and politics just raised the interesting suggestion of creating a new article to separate out the smaller tournaments. It would mean Wikipedia continues to provide a valuable historical reference for otherwise overlooked tournaments, while preventing bloat on the core club page. We would have to come to some consensus over what remains on the club page. I would suggest only the trophies listed by the FA, FIFA, UEFA, consistent with this list and the other Premier League Featured Articles: Man U; Liverpool; Chelsea; Villa; Man City; and Sunderland. What does everyone else think of this idea? Madshurtie (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Awful idea. There really is no problem listing the others. The idea that only honours listed by the FA or intermational organisations is, quite frankly, bonkers. Number 57 14:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Presumably if every trophy-ish thing were found and listed, the article would become too long. The friendlies section, for example, hasn't yet got many competitions pre-2000. Is there no upper limit on how large the trophy section of a club article could get? Madshurtie (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No. Number 57 16:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: You mean yes. Sections have been split out of this article before for growing too big, including lists. I should have asked how much longer would it have to get to deserve a split? Madshurtie (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No. The solution would be to reformat with multiple columns as first port of call (per West Ham as a guide if you need one) but there should be no splitting off of competitions. You could argue that individual player accomplishments could be split away such as Chicago Bulls accomplishments and records or List of Celtic F.C. records and statistics but they are an extreme example for an already very complex multi columned section of the main article or in the case of Celtic, in order to push individual player records out of the main article (not the decision I would have taken). Alternatively if enough content was to be found for a section of victories that were particularly noteworthy then you could have a separate article entirely discussing them but we should be clear that this does not diminish the first article. Koncorde (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Koncorde: The question wasn't whether it was the first solution. Dunno why everyone's denying that sections can get long enough for a split. Reformatting does sound like a good first option though.

I'd like to point to other communities that disagree with Koncorde and Number 57. The Juventus community did exactly what we're talking about, and that list isn't much longer than the Arsenal section. Barcelona, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich (discussed here) keep all of the smaller tournaments in a section of their records pages. I imagine they aren't the decisions Koncorde would have taken. Madshurtie (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a limited number of available competitions to be won, it is very unlikely that the "honours" section would ever get so bloated. Looking at the Bayern article (for instance) it appears to be haphazardly divided, with no clear reason for inclusion or exclusion. It is this lack of rationale that is the bigger issue as there are now two official lists of Bayern FC Honours on wikipedia. This lack of internal consistency is a major problem.

When a section is over-long (which is typically decided by the size of the page, rather than the level of detail in a section) this tends to either be crufty information such as charts, graphs, lists of top scorers per season which are more relevant to individual seasons rather than the club as a whole. At that point it may be decided that there is enough content to justify creating a new article to further expand on that information. The main article meanwhile would not specifically lose information, it may be condensed, it may be reformatted, but in reality it should provide the same information but without the wordiness.

The Bayern list article of justifies its existence by including huge chunks of information about other statistical data (and its reserve teams, players etc), but the Juventus one for instance is very weak. Even then, it doesn't resolve the issue that there are now two distinct lists of honours. Koncorde (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Koncorde: I was assuming that if we dug up all the friendly competitions from past decades it would add hundreds of tournaments and consume half the page. Maybe you're right and that's unlikely. I guess it would only be an issue if it happened. I agree that, in the Juventus case, the stand-alone article looks too small to be justified.

Looks like the Bayern community initially meant for there to be only major national and international tournaments on the club page, like with Real Madrid and Barcelona, but someone changed it several years later. With those three clubs, the communities seemed to have decided the best home for minor tournaments is in the statistics and records page (which Arsenal also has) and that the club page only deserves trophies listed by international organizations. Obviously that's since been undermined in the Bayern case. Presumably they think that keeping down the size of the club pages is worth the duplication.

I can see the problems with duplication, and I agree the size of the Arsenal section isn't currently too large, though condensing it with formatting may be wise. Would it be worth having separate subheadings for the trophies recognized by the FA, UEFA, and FIFA, just to aid reader navigation when looking for those more widely discussed tournaments? Madshurtie (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"I was assuming that if we dug up all the friendly competitions from past decades it would add hundreds of tournaments and consume half the page." - to be fair, friendly tournaments like the Emirates Cup are a 21st century invention (or at least, English clubs' involvement in them certainly is). You wouldn't find any records of Arsenal competing in anything like that in the 50s, 60, 70s, etc...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The earliest I can think of is the Amsterdam Tournament. – PeeJay 19:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Eugh, I've just looked at this and think that this is a bad move. The page is ugly, the list unhelpful, indiscriminate and unencylopedic. I can't believe that people can genuinely believe that being runner-up in the First Division/Premier Leauge is not an honour and that winning the Will Mather Manor House Hospital Memorial Trophy is. I strongly urge us taking that position that exhibition/friendly trophies should be removed from club articles. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(On a secondary note: the Bayern/Barcelona approach of dividing into 'Domestic-European-Worldwide-Regional' is superior to the current division on the Arsenal page into 'League-Knockout Cup-Super Cup'). Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the others that keeping these tournaments somewhere on Wikipedia is encyclopaedic, at least for historical record of their names and dates. I personally have no problem with us making the separate records page the primary list, but Number57 and Koncorde seem to have quite aggressive opinions about it. I see three questions as it is:

• 1. Whether we should have two lists. Koncorde dislikes the duplication, which implies we should scrap the section on the records page and just leave a link to the club page. However, it's standard across all major clubs to have the honours section also on the records page, so this would affect a lot of other articles.
• 2. If we have two lists, should both be full lists, or should one be the master list? Keeping two full lists is the worst for duplication and keeping edits synchronized, but it means we don't have to make possibly subjective decisions about what honours should be excluded from a summary list.
• 3. If we go for a summary-list/master-list approach, what do we exclude from the summary list? Say we decide to make the list-of-records page the primary list, and move everything insignificant off the Arsenal FC page, how do we decide what's insignificant?

My current opinion is that only the records page should be the full list, with up to every named friendly/obsolete cup we can find, so long as we can make objective decisions about what should be included on the club page. I've thought of four criteria:

a) Categorize by competition format (round-robin leagues, knockout tournaments, one match curtain raisers, other one match cups) to separate out the friendlies. This method would be objective because we'd only have to look at the format of the tournament to justify inclusion or exclusion, and there are records like this that give this information. However it would mean league and knockout format friendlies (Emirates Cup, etc) would have to remain on the main page. Incidentally, I changed the 'Domestic-European-Other' to this so that readers could find the bigger tournaments without the one match 'cups' cluttering them up

b) Only include active tournaments on the summary list. Very simple, but would be quite harsh on the early history and wartime history of the club when the London Senior Cups, etc., were the only tournaments available, and would also exclude historically big tournaments like the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup.

c) Look at the club programmes or other historical records and exclude stuff based on whether the tournament's labelled as a friendly or not. This would of course assume that they consistently provide this information, and would be a lot of effort even if they did.

d) Only include tournaments organized by the FA, UEFA, and FIFA, like here. This would mean we sacrifice the early history, wartime, etc. stuff, but keep the European trophies and lose the multi-match friendlies.

I'm leaning towards a) or d). Madshurtie (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(d) is a non-starter because the Football League is not organised by the FA, so no pre-1992 titles would be listed. (b) is a similarly dreadful idea – the idea that defunct tournaments are not notable enough to be listed has me lost for words. There's clearly no consensus for your desire to remove stuff from the page, so let's go for (e) leave it as it is and do something more productive that fussing about one section of one article. Number 57 11:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem: add the Football League to those three organizations. I agree b) is bad. I know there's no consensus but WP:CCC, which is exactly what Super Nintendo Chalmers is asking for. And this is relevant to at least two articles for every football club in the world. Madshurtie (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I'm with a variant of the 'd' option (I think it's clear that the entities listed by Madshurtie are intended to be indicative rather than comprehensive). We list competitive (ie, non-exhibition/pre-season) cups and leagues that a club's first team has competed in. I don't think we need to give a list of the authorities that we do includ: if we were talking of Spurs, for example, it would be appropriate to list the Southern League title of 1899-1900. I think we simply need to exclude any exhibition or pre-season (or youth/reserve) tournaments. If people want to go ahead an create 'club record' pages for teams that list every single friendly tournament they've won: well I think they're wasting their time creating dull and uninteresting articles, but I'm not going to stop them doing that!!!!Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW - yes, this means that there would be border-line cases (eg Wartime tournaments) that are up for discussion on each page. I think that's fine, we need to go with what reliable sources say for such cases. We could even agree on a 'presumption of inclusion' principle for borderline cases. I'm suggesting that we follow the principle that if trophy is clearly understood as an exhibition, pre-season, reserve or friendly trophy then we exclude it. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That sounds more like c) to be honest, since we'd have to have a method of defining what's a friendly and should be relegated to the records page. With very old matches that might not be as obvious as it sounds. Madshurtie (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Warney Cresswell

According to Everton he "made a big-money move in 1927 when Everton paid £7,000 to Sunderland for the services of the defender", which would mean he broke the World football transfer record for a second time. Should I add this second move onto the list?--EchetusXe 15:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You'd also need to amend Progression of British football transfer fee record. Oddly, although I can find this mentioned in a few places, the Everton move (as a record) seems to be missing from most sources. Number 57 15:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

When does a player gets rated Top - importance?

Even the articles for Pele, Johan Cruyff, and Diego Maradona do not get Top - importance but only High - importance. So what is the reason for not assining the highest rating for even the greatest players in the history of the game?MackyBeth (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment#Importance scale. GiantSnowman 11:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Which only adds to the confusion, since the criteria for High-importance is that the subject is only relevant for one country or one continent. As an example Lionel Messi is cited, an Argentinian player who has been playing in Barcelona for years now, so how is his impact restricted to only one continent? MackyBeth (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What you're citing is the "base" criteria for a "high-importance" article. The "football-related" criteria for a "top-importance" article (second-to-last column) explicitly state: "Articles strictly related to the game: rules of the game, positions, confederations, etc. No biographical articles." (emphasis added) --Theurgist (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Top-importance articles should be limited to around 30 in total, per guidelines. Obviously this precludes "world-famous" players, which should be assessed as "high". For assessment enthusiasts, there are currently over 12,000 football articles requiring assessment. Thanks, C679 10:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Theurgist, I had obviously not read that part, it answers my question. MackyBeth (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Is there anyone here familiar with the Bulgarian soccer, in particular the Bulgarian national team? I was wondering if somebody wouldn't mind taking a look at Talk:Bulgaria national football team#Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016_2. No sources are provided for any of the changes being proposed, and some of the content seems to similar to stuff previously removed which has been added by POV-pushing sock puppets. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I'm Bulgarian. What exactly is being requested? As far as I can tell, the proposed text only adds some minor stylistic changes concerning the article's appearance, and some minor additions such as what the team's national stadium is, with no data being modified. I did spot an error - the team's all-time high in the FIFA rankings was actually 8th, not 3rd; but that error was already in the article at the time of the request, so I guess the editor simply wasn't aware of it or failed to notice it while editing the source code. --Theurgist (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Theurgist and thanks for taking a look. To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what is being requested as well. The same editor copied and pasted the entire article (or a previous version of it) into a separate earlier request which I declined. I asked them to be more specific and they posted a big chunck of wiki markup which is also hard to decifer. The page is currently protected and has been protected a couple of times before because of POV pushing, etc. by edit warring sock puppets, so I'm not sure if the changes proposed this time are just another attempt to add such info. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

So, this is the talk page material copied and pasted into the respective sections of the article (the edit made exactly as requested). And this is a minor subsequent edit by myself. So this is how the article was changed altogether. You can see it's a rather minor change.

However, the version that the editor posted into the earlier request (the one that you declined) would be a much more drastic change to the article's overall appearance and content. One thing that struck me immediately is an entire, completely unsourced section on the 1930 World Cup, which makes rather odd claims that Bulgaria "qualified" for that tournament and were due to compete in Brazil's group, but "flight delays" forced the team to withdraw, to their "major disappointment". This can't be true because, first, there was no qualification for the 1930 World Cup, second, teams travelled by ship back then, and third, no source that I have seen gives any indication that Bulgaria was ever due to participate in that tournament. There probably are other issues with that version as well; I haven't examined it in much detail. --Theurgist (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance on this Theurgist. Can you please mark the request as answered on the article's talk page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. --Theurgist (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Jenna Fife for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenna Fife is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk

Can an admin move User talk:EchetusXe/Charlie Kirk to Charlie Kirk please? Some idiot was creating a nonsense page there nine years ago so it is protected.--EchetusXe 15:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@EchetusXe: Done. Number 57 18:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--EchetusXe 19:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Playing position (retired)

It seems to be a complete waste of space to include (retired) next to the playing position. A retired goalkeeper retains his position of goalkeeper, active or not (or even dead). This has been discussed before (back in 2008) Perhaps a bot could be commissioned to remove it from articles featuring it within the infobox football biography. Thoughts? Thanks, C679 11:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's redundant and would support a bot request. Number 57 13:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. When a goalkeeper retires, he's still a goalkeeper, and putting that he's retired is entirely redundant.

And yes, a bot would be helpful for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

BRFA filed. C679 09:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability Criteria for Referees

What are the notability criteria for referees? I reviewed a draft article on a referee, which stated that he was FIFA-certified. I haven't seen anything official, but I would think that an official would be notable if he has officiated in a premier league, that is, a league whose players are ipso facto notable. In North America, sports officials are employees of the league, so that I would assume that a referee in a premier league is notable along with the players. In Europe, are referees employees of the league? The overall situation with association football is more complicated than with many other sports, because there is a high-level organization, FIFA, above all of the leagues, while in the four major North American sports, the league is paramount. What are the notability criteria for referees? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: We don't have any, so it goes on a case-by-case basis. Number 57 18:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:GNG basically. GiantSnowman 18:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Referees are employees of the association, depending on the association. Most employees of associations are not notable. So GNG would be required. C679 19:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree, WP:GNG would be the only criteria for referees, as WP:NFOOTY only covers footballers & managers. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Romanian League history

The history of Template:2015–16 Liga I Relegation Round table is emberassing from both, Qed237 (talk · contribs) and Eddie Nixon (talk · contribs). Any opinions or actions? Kante4 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Appalling behaviour. I have blocked them both for 48 hours and will be requesting that Qed has their Twinkle privileges removed. Number 57 13:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That's was not my intention but got it why it happened. Still, i go for 7-14 as this is not the "first" table. Kante4 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think 7-14 as well, as it's a subset of the main table. Still, there was too much reversion. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I want to appologise for my behaviour, sorry. Regarding the table, it is obvious were I stand. The winner of that table will finish 7th. @Eddie Nixon: When unblocked please join discussion. Qed237 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I left five sources for my edits. The official websites of LPF, the professional league, and FRF, the Romanian football federation, use the system with 1 to 8. soccerway and scoresway use the same system. Gazeta Sporturilor, gsp.ro, the only Romanian sport newspaper uses the same system. It is stupid that wikipedia uses a different system. Eddie Nixon (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I do not wish to edit war, but the consensus here is clear and still Eddie Nixon made this edit again immediately after block expired thus continuing the edit war. Should he be blocked again, or should I go to WP:ANI? Qed237 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I just saw that the editor already has been blocked again. Do you think it is safe for me to restore 7-14 based on this discussion or should someone else do it? It is the original version, but I do not want to war. Qed237 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I've done it for you as it appears to be the consensus here. Number 57 22:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Thank you very much. Qed237 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

AC London (again)

Users have again been entering duff information on the AC London F.C. page - I don't want to get into trouble for edit warring so can someone take a look for me - it's basically copied and pasted info. I'm not even sure the current squad should be on there - they are a Step 6 club Kivo (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kivo: Just so you know, copyright violations are exempt from 3RR, so if you're removing copyvios you cannot be accused of edit warring. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's true in a technical sense, but a busy admin could easily block everyone involved in a revert war, and sort it out later. Regardless of the rules, it is pointless to revert more than three times in 24 hours because determining who can hit "undo" more often is not productive. Kivo is doing exactly the right thing by trying to attract outside attention. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Kaspars Dubra infobox

The same request as the last time. Thanks in advance -BlameRuiner (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• @BlameRuiner: Done. Number 57 10:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Football records in Spain

Could someone with better knowledge of the subject than me take a look at this article. It's been the subject of a protracted edit-war over whether or not Inter-Cities Fairs Cup titles are official. Both of the editors involved have been blocked indefinitely, so the edit war should be over, but I'm not comfortable leaving the article as is, since it would basically mean that someone has "won". Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be a precessor of UEFA Cup, but I'm not that sure of it. I think it's a valid title, it was disputed by a bunch of European top level clubs and at that time, was the only continental tournament aside from Champions League. MYS77 ^✉ 12:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It is. Per UEFA: "The UEFA Europa League evolved from the UEFA Cup, which itself was initially conceived ... (as) a tournament for representative sides from European cities that regularly held trade fairs. This forerunner to the UEFA Cup, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, was founded on 18 April 1955." Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The Fairs Cup is a forerunner to the UEFA Cup/Europa League, but it's not considered an actual precursor; i.e. any team that won the Fairs Cup could not be said to have won the UEFA Cup/Europa League. However, that's not to say the Fairs Cup isn't considered official; it just shouldn't be counted as part of the UEFA Cup/Europa League. – PeeJay 14:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, didn't know predecessor had that specific meaning in this context. In that case no, but Football records in Spain always listed the Fairs Cup separately anyway. Now, UEFA has said that "the Fairs Cup is not considered a UEFA competition, and hence clubs' records in the Fairs Cup are not considered part of their European record." However, it does list the Fairs Cup finals alongside the UEFA Cup finals in the same article, and some editions of the Champions League statistics handbook include Fairs Cup statistics among clubs' "Records in Europe". I'm leaning towards inclusion. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

List of S.L. Benfica players

I come here asking for input on what to do because I wish promote it to FL in the near future. The list is complete, but needs minor tweaks and some decisions of what to do. One is related to the "Notable players". Although the reference still work, Benfica has some time ago, removed the direct link to that list of "great players" and you can't get there without knowing the exact URL. This was done probably because the list was done a long time ago and never updated, the last player being João Pinto in 2000. At least three or four recent players deserve recognition, so I guess they no longer select a list of great players. I first thought of writing some prose about them, but that would feel pointless because that's what their articles are for, so now I'm thinking of removing it entirely, as Benfica has done.

The other thing is the List of captains added by SLBedit. As you can see many players share the same years as captains. That's because the reference doesn't actually have a captain year by year as List of Manchester United F.C. players does, but instead talks about 54 historic players and their data, including games as captain. I was thinking of keeping that work but in the notes section that already exists, and instead of 50 games which is way to low, put the threshold at 200 or 250, so I don't overload the Footnotes with that data.

Finally, I've used Zerozero and Serbenfiquista as auxiliary sources. All the data actually only comes from the Almanac, except for recent players for obvious reasons. The article is done in similar fashion to List of Birmingham City F.C. players, so like them, I'm consider removing that references so not to confuse readers. Any opinions?--Threeohsix (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Match Report references within football box collapsible

I was looking at a previous season club article (this one 2009–10 Norwich City F.C. season) and there are a lot of references within the football box collapsible template as follows

[http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1719771,00.html Report]

There are a number of issues with this.

1. There are no reference tags (so they don't get treated as one) 2. They are bare references so don't necessarily are prone to link rot.

I've done a quick search and a large number of the 2009–10 Norwich City F.C. season links are dead references, the 2009–10 Arsenal F.C. season page also has a few and the 2009–10 Liverpool F.C. season only has live links because they are using the BBC for a source.

Can we improve the standard for these to something which is less prone to link rot?

something like

Report <ref>{{cite web....}}</ref>

I can only see this problem getting worse... => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

RM at Perth Glory FC Youth

Hi all

There is a requested move open at Talk:Perth Glory FC Youth, proposing to move it to Perth Glory FC (youth). This would benefit from input from you guys, who are familiar with the naming conventions. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-playing staff

Reading the article on the comedian Henning Wehn, it turns out that he worked for Wycombe Wanderers in marketing. Is it appropriate for him to be added to Category:Wycombe Wanderers F.C. non-playing staff? It seems to be intended for coaches etc, but technically he is a non-playing member of staff at the club. Cheers, Number 57 20:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't find it unreasonable to add him as he technically was part of the non-playing "staff". Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That was my thought too. Number 57 20:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Flags in national team infoboxes

I'm just starting a discussion to confirm that we shouldn't use flags in infoboxes, including Template:Infobox national football team. I've seen a lot of such articles that add a flag next to the country's name at the top of the infobox, but the most pressing issue at the minute is the use of {{fb}} and {{fb-rt}} in the "First international" section near the bottom. For most teams, this wouldn't make much difference, but for the likes of Bosnia and Herzegovina, this has resulted in wrapping. A temporary solution was found by using the {{nowrap}} template, but surely there's no real need to use the flags there at all. Because this situation affects hundreds of articles, I've requested that a bot be used to remove the flags but leave the links intact. Basically, all we need here is for WP:FOOTY to endorse the bot and it can then get going. – PeeJay 09:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The flags indeed make the lines longer than they have to be, but it's only part of the problem. Note that this larger issue was ressurected (for the umpteenth time) a few days ago on Template talk:Infobox national football team by PanchoS. Perhaps if we want to tackle the flags with the use of a bot, we should try to figure out the most ideal format for this information, so that it can all be handled at the same time?

For example, does every match in the infobox even need to mention the own team? It could instead say "Biggest win   7-0 vs Estonia (Zenica, 10 September 2008)". For the first international, 'lost' or 'won' can be added: "First international   Lost 2-0 vs Albania (Tirana, 30 November 1995)". People that want to know more should be able to find this information in the article. (If is not notable enough to be in the article, it shouldn't be in the infobox anyway). By making these mentions shorter, the headers can be on the left, and we need only a single header on top: Notable matches, making the whole thing a lot cleaner. Of course my wording is just an example; just trying to keep it short! –Sygmoral (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here! I mostly agree, and in fact this pretty much seems like what I proposed on Template talk:Infobox national football team with the key difference being: Sygmoral proposes to merge all three under the heading "Notable matches" while I proposed merging the (numerically) largest win and the (numerically) largest defeat into a "Records" section.
This small difference has some major consequences: Clearly, the numerically largest win resp. defeat usually aren't the most notable matches of a national team. They're not much more than trivia we actually don't even have to list in the infobox at all. Listing them under "Notable matches" would call for adding even more matches, for example the really most notable matches: World Cup finals, wins against major teams, most famous matches, or whatever the definition of "notable". I think, this would open a can of worms we rather want to avoid.
If we're to keep the (numerically) largest win and defeat in the infobox, it would IMHO make more sense to group them with other historical records, such as "Most caps" (in history), "Top scorer" (in history) etc. But we're not so far apart, and I think we'll eventually find a good solution. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, too much would go into something called 'Notable matches'. I was just trying to find a common header name, but it indeed makes sense to put them under a new 'Records' heading, and move the caps and goals records there as well. I'm itching to make an functional example of this, but am too busy right now :s Will try this weekend though, if no one else tried by then! (oh and I'll leave off the flags!.. to try and get back "on topic" a bit :P ) –Sygmoral (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The debate around biggest win / loss in infoboxes is to my mind creating a solution to a problem that does not exist, or at least is trying to state that there is a problem when actually there is a very simple solution. I completely agree that a fully populated infobox in an article where the sourced prose is only very short is not really appropriate either from a content pov or visually. However, the way to deal with this is not to remove parameters from the infobox but, and I know this is a radical proposal(!), to actually do some writing and provide sourced prose in the main body of the article to flesh out the statistics provided in the infobox.

For example, this article, which I am involved in, uses all the parameters noted above. From a visual pov, the longer infobox to my mind actually sits better in the article where there would otherwise be significant whitespace. Additionally, all elements of the infobox (including both the results and the ELO ranking) are discussed in the main body of the article. Furthermore, they are also useful parameters to use on results lists, where arguably they are even more relevant.

If a solution is required, I would suggest that instead of it being the removal of parameters a note included at the top of the infobox stating that all entries in the box should be discussed in sourced prose in the main body of the article or be at risk of removal. This way we should avoid having inordinately long infoboxes in relation to the overall length of an article, but at the same time allow editors the greatest amount of room to use the infobox to provide a concise summary of the article. That being said, I am open to suggestions as to how the infobox can be made more efficient without necessarily removing any parameters.Fenix down (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't even have to make this explicit. It goes without saying that whatever is added to the infobox should be also mentioned (and sourced) in the article text, as infoboxes serve as a summary of an article's most important information. So whether the parameters get removed from the infobox or not, I'm absolutely in favor of adding the content to the actual article text. However, I can't see how this would affect my proposal to keep the parameters while condensing and reorganizing them under a "Records" section, as their intrusive presence is WP:UNDUE, regarding their rather low relevance. --PanchoS (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, can we not get sidetracked for once? This thread is about the removal of the flags. – PeeJay 12:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess the point is: if there is a question about whether those matches should remain in the infobox in their current form at all, it may become irrelevant whether there are or were flags. But in its current form, yes, removing the flags would be a first step in the right direction. –Sygmoral (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Fred Pentland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:GiantSnowman has removed virtually the entire Fred Pentland article. Ok, it needs improving fair enough but I think his actions are a bit extreme to say the least. If this is not a case of vandalism I don't know what is. I would have been more than happy to help improve it if I had been asked to. I see no valid reasoning, if every one followed this example dozens of Wikipedia articles could just be randomly removed/deleted. Djln Djln (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. The majority of the unreferenced content has been there since October 2006 (added by you!) and it's been tagged for improvement since December 2009 with no improvement in the past 6+ years. Furthermore you have been asked to improve the article - instead of doing so, you just added back the unreferenced content (falsely accusing me of vandalism in the process) and then called me an arse. GiantSnowman 13:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

When GiantSnowman removed the content for the first time earlier today, I restored the content, tagged it for {{inline}}, and suggested that its not being inline-referenced didn't make it unreferenced. GiantSnowman didn't think that was enough: it's a judgment call, and we agreed to disagree.

We could and should have asked Djln, who wrote the original article (which struck me as a well-researched and well-written piece) and who is still active, if he fancied adding inline sourcing. We can't go back to before all this happened, but it would be great if we could pretend to. I'll ask now, if it isn't too late: @Djln:, please would you consider adding inline sourcing to your version of the article. I'd be happy to help if and where I can. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• GiantSnowman, nobody has ever asked me to improve it. Am I meant to monitor every single Wiki article I have contributed over the past ten years. The article is factual and more than meets notability guidelines and had sources and external links. Not disputing it needs improving. It is easy to sit on your high horse and slag off articles because they don't meet your ridiculous standards. Why not try and improve it yourself. From what I can see Wiki editors fall in two categories – those who actually contribute articles/edits and those that a bitch and moan if someone misses a references but contributes nothing positive. Just because you can conjure some guideline justifying her actions doesn't make you less of vandal. I tend to call it like I see it. If you don't like been called a vandal or an arse then stop behaving like one. Djln Djln (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Djln: - as my diff above I did ask you to improve the sourcing on the article. I'm still waiting for that to happen. Indeed the only person who has actually added sources and referenced content to the Pentland article is me! GiantSnowman 09:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This is very unlike GS in his defence. The material should be restored, sources identified, and then when no source can be identified if the content is questionable we can remove. Koncorde (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This is true. GS is good editor as I have stated on his talk page. This seems out of character. All the material in article is factual. Djln Djln (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

How's this unlike GS? He deleted hours of work of updating stats and club numbers, just because it was from an IP he thought was making vandalism, instead every club number he added (sure it wasn't referenced), GS undid. Which sucks because he really contributed well to work myself would have put hours on instead. So GS is sitting there on his high horse, doesn't care wha ta close community he's creating and deleting hours of works from new contributers, and then just care out of the reason "It may just aswell been vandalism, but I didn't have time to check". JESUS. // Psemmler (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Psemmler: - an IP making mass unexplained changes is a high indicator of possible vandalism. GiantSnowman 09:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. a brief review of GiantSnowman's edits show a pattern of this behaviour stretching back over several years. At the very least, it is unbecoming of an administrator to be pushing a radical (tendentious?) interpretation of the policy. Bring back Regi Blinker (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bring back Regi Blinker: - how can your "brief" review go back years? GiantSnowman 09:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Because this is the editor formerly known as Clavdia_chauchat. The attitude suggested this wasn't a new editor, and her comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Bell (footballer, born 1923) have given her away. Number 57 11:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• It seems clear that a number of editors have expressed concerns about GS's recent edits. Not just me then. Sounds like he needs reminding of Wikipedia etiquette. I found his attitude today disturbing and not the behaviour expected from an administrator Djln Djln (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Djln: I don't need reminding of anything. You think my edit was overzealous? Fine, you're entitled to your opinion. However I 100% stand by removing heaps of content that has been unreferenced for 10 years! GiantSnowman 09:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• @GiantSnowman: Not just me. Several editors here have expressed concerns about your edits in this discussion alone. Does that not say something to you. If not then I think you are being very arrogant and up yourself. If you just had the courtesy to raise your concerns with me before deciding to vandalise the article, that would have made all the difference. I would have been happy to cooperate with you on improving article. All your "contribution" has done has left the article in a far worse state than it was before. Your way makes Wikipedia look childish, amateur and unprofessional. DjlnDjln (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Djln: - learn about WP:NOTVAND and learn how to sign your posts properly. GiantSnowman 16:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and we're still waiting for you to source your content. Maybe if you spent more time doing that, and less time chucking about baseless accusations and making silly comments? GiantSnowman 16:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Who the fuck is we, from what I can see you are johnny no mates here. So let me get this right, now you have finished vandalizing the article, you expect me to go and repair it? You can do one. When I do or if I decide to repair the damage you have done to a perfectly fine article, it will be when I decide and not you, asshole. What you have done is one of the worst cases of vandalism I have ever seen on Wiki but because you an administrator you can get away with it. Djln Djln (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Outside comment: Djln, you won't get anywhere swearing at other users and won't get your point across any clearer by doing such. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you cannot accuse someone of being unprofessional and then in the next comment start swearing whilst making a personal attack. That is not to say your original argument is without merit, as we have seen you have some support in this matter, but you are not helping your case with that last comment. Also the typically used phrase is 'billy no mates'.--EchetusXe 21:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:FUTURE or not?

Diogo Jota has signed with Atlético Madrid, I added a reliable source for it. However, he will only move to the Spanish capital on 1 July 2016 (if he will be loaned or not is another matter), is this reason enough to remove Atlético from his infobox?

Please note, I have not reverted the user that removed said info, and if I was in the wrong (please explain why so that I will not incur in this action in the future) I apologize. Attentively --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Be Quiet AL: The general consensus here with transfers is usually that until they actually move, they are with their old team. IMO, adding him to Atlético Madrid would imply he's eligible to play for them, which he isn't, since he hasn't moved there yet. And a fair number of "done deals" actually end up being cancelled. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I see, but I did not add him to Atlético because intro reads "...who plays for F.C. Paços de Ferreira...". The storyline is also quite clear because it states exactly when will he leave for Spain (if he does, deal can be cancelled as you well observed). However, if the current version is the better one, then i'll abide by it of course. Thanks. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Be Quiet AL: I'm not sure what the best situation is to do here but I can tell you that's how we've done it similarily at Antonio Conte with his move to Chelsea at the end of the Euros. It states Chelsea in 2016- in the infobox but still says Italy national team as current manager etc. I don't know if it's different for managers, but that's how it is over there (which I'm not even sure if it's technically "allowed"). Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Presenting him as an Atlético Madrid player in infobox with "2016–" implies that he is already playing for the Spanish team. SLBedit (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if we should add the category for the new club. SLBedit (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The infobox/category should not be updated until he actually moves. GiantSnowman 07:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There are many of examples of pre-contract agreements being ripped up / ignored (e.g. Sven-Goran Eriksson becoming Blackburn Rovers manager in the late 90s). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Marshall Islands national football team

Would someone from this Wikiproject mind taking a closer look at Marshall Islands national football team? It's a newly created stub, but I'm not sure it's notable per WP:FOOTYN because according to the article there is no such team; the article instead seems to be part of a campaign to get such a team established. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've PRODed it because there doesn't seem to be anything of value in the article, and I don't see how there ever can be unless the team is actually formed. It has been deleted before. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 13:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Gasheadsteve. I didn't know the article had been deleted before. I see you prodded it, but it could also probably be tagged for speedy per WP:G4 or possibly even WP:A11. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I don't think WP:A11 applies here, and I don't know what its previous incarnation looked like, so I can't tell if it's similar enough to the original to make WP:G4 a valid reason for deletion. Maybe an admin could have a look... — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 13:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Understand. Anyways, thanks again for taking a closer look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Article's prod tag was declined because the file had previously been discussed at AfD. Article was then tagged for speedy per WP:G4, but that was declined because the amount of time which had past since the AfD discussion and the differences in the content between the current version and the deleted version. Article is currently tagged for speedy per WP:G11, but if that is removed then the only recourse might be to take it to AfD once again for discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Article has been deleted per G11. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the speedy, looking at what was deleted, there was essentially nothing on a national team there just personal speculation that amounted to WP:NOTBLOG. I would not expect there to be anything substantive to be said about a national team anyway as they don't exist. There is very little in the way of organised football on the Marshall Islands and anything speculative about a national team that can be referenced to reliable sources would probably be better at Football in the Marshall Islands for now with a redirect to there for the national team if anything was written. Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sydney Roosters list articles

Would someone from Footy mind taking a look at List of Sydney Roosters players, List of Sydney Roosters records, List of Sydney Roosters honours and List of Sydney Roosters representatives? None of the entries in any of those articles is supported by reliable sources which seems to be required per WP:LISTN.

The list of players in particular is one long scroll of 1151 names which is probably only going to continue to grow if left as is. Maybe it would be better to break this up into smaller articles by period/era or by number of appearances ,or to do something like is done for List of Manchester United F.C. players and establish some common selection criteria for inclusion? Any suggestions would be most appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: This is the association football project, we don't really know anything about rugby league..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops my bad. I got the Wikiprojects mixed up. Thanks for catching that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Historical time zones in national football results pages

Hi. Tanonero and I have been working on a project to get all the Italy national football team results in order in its history as seen here and here. We were using a website in order to get the correct historical time zone, however for the time in Amsterdam, Netherlands using this website (and selecting 1900-1924 in the drop down menu for example) it states there are transitions from AT (obviously Amsterdam time) --> NST (which is what? Netherlands Standard Time? I can't seem to find any info on this...). Looking at UTC+00:20, it says it was used in the Netherlands from 1909-1940 (it doesn't mention anything about NST). For NST it says it transitions to UTC+1:20 (no page exists). Does anyone have any insight on this or is it nothing significant? As an FYI In Canada for a specific Canadian province it stands for Newfoundland Standard Time (which I doubt that's what it stands for in this case). Thanks. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe it just indicates Daylight Savings Time. Probably "Netherlands Summer Time". –Sygmoral (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, that makes sense! We have implemented it into the pages mentioned now. Thanks again. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Category and multiple citizenship

Should we add a "footballer" category for each nationality? See this edit. SLBedit (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In that specific instance, it seems fine to me because he's agreed to be called up by Morocco for the U20 team. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TheBigJagielka. // Psemmler (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as he has elected to represent Morocco then being in the nationality category is fine. GiantSnowman 07:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

He hasn't played for Morocco so I removed the category. SLBedit (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Is he a Moroccan citizen? Hack (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Right @SLBedit: so you came here for our advice and then just completely ignored it? Category restored. @Hack: yes he must be if he is eligible to play for them. GiantSnowman 17:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too used to Asian and Oceanian football where being called up or playing isn't always an indication of elgibility. Hack (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

So a player is called-up and a category is added? I have always thought otherwise. It sounds WP:FUTURE. He is Moroccan (second nation) but he hasn't been a 'Moroccan footballer' at national level. SLBedit (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess the question is what "Moroccan footballer" means. Is it:

1. A footballer with Moroccan citizenship
2. A footballer who plays for Morocco

I believe it's number 2, as that's how we define footballer's nationalities usually. In which case, he isn't committed to that nationality until he actually plays a senior game. So I'd say no to the category for now. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I would choose the second definition per WP:FOOTY. SLBedit (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A number of sources describe him as Moroccan, such as [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. GiantSnowman 18:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Second and third sources say he is both Dutch and Moroccan. SLBedit (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You can have more than one nationality... GiantSnowman 18:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Not the point. SLBedit (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If the sources are to be trusted, he is both Dutch and Moroccan. This has nothing to do with his footballing nationality. Hack (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If he has been called up by the Moroccans to play football for them then he is a Moroccan footballer. If reliable sources describe him as a Moroccan footballer then so should we. GiantSnowman 07:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If one is called up to a national team, he is in fact part of the national team's association, and therefore he's that association's footballer. One footballer can obviously be a part of multiple football associations nowadays, but for me there's no questions abotu that he has been a part of the Maroccan football association, due to his call up, and therefore he's an Moroccan footballer. // Psemmler (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandi Sahman

I tagged the article as a possible hoax but an administrator has removed the PROD with the comment "core statements appear to be true". However I cannot find any evidence of him playing for the Bosnia national team, neither did he play for Viktoria Zizkov in the 2012–13 Czech First League, as the team didn't compete in it. Soccerway and even our non-RS Transfermarkt shed little light on the matter. Could anybody confirm or deny whether he has in fact played in a fully-professional league? Thanks, C679 16:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Nearly all edits appear to have been made by SPA account User:SamarrahSC87 and come directly from the website [8] complete with dodgy translation ("booth feeted"). Self promotion? Bosnia haven't played Vietnam in an international match since 1997, when Sahman would have been 10 years old... Gricehead (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit to add - the 2nd citation (fupa.net) doesn't support the text it is noted against. VDV camp is for out of work professional footballers in Germany, and there is no evidence he was contracted to a Bundesliga 2 side.Gricehead (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Interested to know exactly what @Fayenatic london: thinks is true on this article? It screams hoax to me. GiantSnowman 17:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, you all know more about the sources than me, and you make good points. As it was exposed via the PROD process for more than 7 days, I guess I could delete it after all, rather than require an AfD. Does that sound appropriate? – Fayenatic London 21:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have looked at sources in Arabic, Persian and Hebrew and there's indication of him signing with Al-Shorta (this, for instance), and with Esteghlal Ahvaz (this) and trialing with al-Ramtha (Jordan) (link) and with Hapoel Bnei Lod and Maccabi Umm al-Fahm (both Israel, for both he played half-matches in the very minor 2nd division Toto Cup in 2012). Nothing regarding matches for any other claimed Arab clubs (in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else).--Eranrabl (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I would support a delete, mainly due to the self-promotional aspect. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

So it was deleted by Fayenatic london and now recreated by the same authour. I've nominated it for AfD here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Romanian top league

Looked at the sources for Liga 1 being a fully professional league, but they are unclear to me- what year did it become an FPL? Reason I ask is that Viorel Vasile Ignătescu is up for AfD, and he played in the league in 2005-06, so trying to work out if it was fully-professional then or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Cup appearance makes notable?

Would WP:NFOOTBALL and/or WP:GNG apply for someone who made an appearance in a domestic cup? Paul Seguin has only made one appearance for Wolfsburg, when they faced fellow-professional team RB Leipzig in the DFB-Pokal. But would this warrant an article, since he never actually made a league appearance? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

GNG is not affected by appearances - but yes he would meet NFOOTBALL if he played in a Cup game between to teams from WP:FPL. GiantSnowman 10:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Guam

I notice on AFC.com Guam won a regional competition Micronesian Games 1998[9] but when I use the link [10], I see a defeat during the final. Has Guam won the tournament?--FCNantes72 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean "Matao", the nickname of Guam?--FCNantes72 (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

See here. Number 57 12:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In 2005 this user (post #12) spend some time sourcing results of that tournament and got it completed by help from newspaper. RSSSF is based on that. So probably Guam did lose the final. This has the final result exactly the other way around though. -Koppapa (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Moss (referee)

Hi. Could someone please protect Jonathan Moss (referee)? Qed237 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 14:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Christina Burkenroad

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Burkenroad Joeykai (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Tables and qualification

There is a discussion at Template talk:2015–16 Ukrainian Premier League table that could use input from more editors than just me and Aleksandr Grigoryev.

It is about if we should display teams as qualified or not when their stage or competition could change depending on cup result. For example Zorya Luhansk has qualified for 2016–17 UEFA Europa League#Third qualifying round based on their league position, but could qualify for group stage if they win the domestic cup so should they be (Q) Qualified or (T) Qualified, but not yet to phase indicated? Same situation applies to Manchester City who has qualified for Europa League as league cup winners, but may enter Champions League depending on league position.

Please join the discussion at Template talk:2015–16 Ukrainian Premier League table. Qed237 (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Links for olympic teams

An editor has expressed his thoughts about using Template:FlagIOCathlete for individual athletes while we in team tables just use Template:fbo (football), Template:hb (handball) and so on. The difference being that for individuals we link to their name (for example Carlos Tevez) and nation (for example Australia at 2016 Summer Olympics), but for teams we only say "Brazil" and link to Brazil Olympic football team. Should we be consistent?

Examples:

• Current individual: {{flagIOCathlete|[[Mark Spitz]]|USA|1972 Summer}} becomes  Mark Spitz (USA)
• Current team: {{fbo|BRA}} becomes Brazil

I looked at {{flagIOCteam}} but that would result in missing link to the correct sport

• Using flagIOCteam: {{flagIOCteam|BRA|2016 Summer}} becomes  Brazil (BRA)

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Linking of team sports. Should we have (BRA)? Is there a way of modifying the templates to this use or should a new template be created? Qed237 (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Football question at the help desk

There's a football-related question at the help desk here- I've answered it, but wanted to be 100% I'm correct. Put simply, Continental Indoor Soccer League and Premier Soccer Alliance weren't fully professional football leagues, right? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Treatment of joining a youth team after making a senior appearance for another club.

Haji Wright, 18, had a professional career in U.S.A. (3 senior appearances) but transferred to Schalke 04 and is now in their under-19 squad. For the purposes of the infobox, should his time at Schalke 04 be considered youth career or club career? TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Senior career - you cannot become a 'youth' player again once you have started your senior career, as far as infoboxes go. GiantSnowman 14:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

What's the rationale for this? It seems to me that it is perfectly likely that a player could make a senior debut somewhere then become a part of the youth setup at another club (as seems to be the case here). Macosal (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Macosal. In Sweden, there's plenty of 13/14-years-old who's senior debuted with their smaller clubs and later gone to top clups academys for another five years etc. //Psemmler (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Requests for assessment

Some unanswered requests for assessment over on WP:FOOTY/Assessment are a year old. Are they in the wrong place? Or do we just need more people in the assessment team? Would be nice if some people with the right access could weigh in! –Sygmoral (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Youth international player categories

Hi,

Am aware there is a pretty clear consensus about this but just trying to work out exactly what it is/how it should apply in the Australian context. Australia has 3 levels of youth team: U23 (Olyroos), U20 (Young Socceroos) and U17 (Joeys). At the moment there is a category specifically for the U20 youth internationals, nothing for U23 internationals and a category "Australia youth internationals", which, in its lead, identifies as including all players "except U23s". Seems like this is a bit all over the place - what is the correct arrangement? Macosal (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the problem here is that the under-23 category for Australia is missing (i.e. it needs to be added). If you take Brazil (also Argentina and Japan), there is a category for U-20 and for Olympic (U-23), with everything below U-20 put into youth. A bit confusingly, the USA has categories for both U-23 and Olympic. Presumably this is to cover U-23 team players who don't make it to the Games itself. There are also a handful of below U-20 categories that need to be deleted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers - so the final arrangement should be U23 Cat for U23s, U20 Cat for U20s and "youth" cat for players for the U17s (or for all three)? It does feel a bit odd to call it "youth" if it's really the under-17 team alone (although I guess this could be clarified on the category page itself. Macosal (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Having separate Olympic and U23 cats makes sense for countries that previously fielded senior teams at the Olympics. Hack (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Weird coding error.

This could be just a two second job here, but... All the integers on this summary table are correct, it just seems that this string of numbers put together makes the table completely shit the bed. Can anyone figure this one out? I have no idea. Cheers!
- J man708 (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I just found another example of this - J man708 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

/me points at {{Fb rs}}. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: Maaaaaaaaaaaaate. Do you really think I have the energy to scroll up slightly? Hahaha. I actually didn't see that, thanks! - J man708 (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

{{Fb rs}}

Is there a problem with {{Fb rs}} display, the template does not appear to have changed but the display is giving strange results for those updated today. As an example 2015–16 Middlesbrough F.C. season which shows "32 6" above the table and then offsets the cells to the left. Similar problem with 2015–16 Hull City A.F.C. season. Keith D (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right. It is shifting the goal differences up in both articles. It does however not do it in 2015–16 Ipswich Town F.C. season, so it doesn't appear to be a general problem with the template. Calistemon (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, it is shifting positive overall and away goal differences above the table, but negative and "0" goal differentials are displaying where they are supposed to. This will take some looking into. The problem may be with {{Fb gd}} for some reason. I'm testing in my sandbox. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The changes worked fine in my sandbox, not sure why they aren't working live. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

May be the problem was caused by this change? Keith D (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Not likely - {{Unicode}} doesn't seem to do anything anymore. But it now seems that despite working in my sandbox, my changes have caused the away GD on 2015–16 Ipswich Town F.C. season to stop displaying, so I will self-revert what I did. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC) EDIT: See the deletion discussion at TFD where it was decided that all transclusions of {{Unicode}} will be substituted throughout enwiki. 02:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Keith D and Jkudlick: I just made a small fix in {{Fb gd}} adding an empty space (just what unicode did) and then made a dummy edit adelaide article and it seems to be working. I think without that space, the coding becomes |+ (with the plus-sign coming from {{Fb gd}}) which is interprted as a header in wikitable, so a space was needed | + to avoid it being a header. Qed237 (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Calistemon and J man708: sorry, forgot to ping some editors. Qed237 (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sweet. That had me stumped. I was sure I was doing everything right! - J man708 (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Great job! Thanks for figuring that out. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Fb cl3 qr problem

Something happened with the template as there is a lack of a spacing in every table that uses it at the end of the template. For example in these tables. Problem spreads into at least almost all the non-league divisions for a several previous seasons. So, it is better to be fixed inside the template (which is protected). Martinklavier (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You just need to go through the templates and add a non-breaking space ( & n b s p ; without the spaces – can't type it out properly as otherwise it just leaves a space) after the heading. I did this on Fb cl3 qr. It seems the problem was caused by AnomieBOT removing the hardcoded space from these templates. Perhaps Anomie needs to be made aware in case this has caused more widespread problems. Number 57 09:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I've seen this problem before this BOT edit. It looks fine now, though, thank you. I guess it was somehow linked with Template:Unicode deletion Martinklavier (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Martinklavier and Number 57: This deletion of unicode has caused a lot of issues, for example see {{Fb rs}} section above. Qed237 (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Martinklavier and Number 57: I changed it to ( & # 3 2 ; without the spaces) because the unidode added a normal empty spaces which allowed for breaking and nbsp is "non-breaking spaces" meaning "to" and "qualification" had to be on the same row. Now there is a break possibility instead to have "Qualification to" on one row and the tournament on the next, just like before. Hope it is working. Qed237 (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, why is it "Qualification to". Standard English is "Qualification for". Number 57 10:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Because no-one's changed them. I did change this one, because it annoyed me every time I looked at the thing in my club season article, but never went back to do the rest. Is it an ENGVAR thing, or do US native speakers say "qualification for" as well? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Struway2:One more detail - do we need to add the here? Promotion to the Premier League, relegation to the Football League One? Martinklavier (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes for the first, no for the second. It should be added on a case-by-case basis. I've changed "to" to "for" though. Number 57 11:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that "Fb cl3 qr" is deprecated and we should use Module:Sports table where this text is easily changed on a case-to-case basis. Qed237 (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57 and Struway2: you seem to have better knowledge than me regarding the English language (I am not english native). I am watching all top level leagues in User:Qed237/sandbox4, should I go through them all and change "to" to "for"? Is there some case where "to" is better than "for", for example "Relegated to.." instead of "relegated for..."? Qed237 (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: "to" is correct for "Promoted" and "Relegated". Number 57 14:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Promotion and relegation to. Qualification for. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

List of S.L. Benfica players again

A few days ago, I created a topic about his subject, requesting feedback about removing content. I waited for days, with the topic being archived without answers. I obviously thought, since there were no opposition to their removal, I could just remove them. Naturally, SLBedit now opposes, with the rhetoric No one discussed because simply no one replied. You don't own this article.

I don't know if he's right or not, so I'll request feedback one more time, is revolves around two things: The inclusion of a Notable players and List of Captains. About the first, as I said before, despite it's link still working, Benfica has since removed it from their website. I have no problem with giving credit to players, but the thing with the list is that is outdated, at least players like Simão Sabrosa or Óscar Cardozo are now considered to be among our best, and are not mention there. More problems with it, are it's lack of recognition, it wasn't any award or introduction to hall of fame or something, just a small resume about 34 players that had play for Benfica until 2000. Also, why chose this list? for instance the 2004 book "Memorial Benfica - 100 Glórias", mentions the club 100 best players, or the 2014 book "Plantel Glorioso", who includes a vote of the 26 best, both books being official club products, so their importance at least equals that of website. From my research over other List of Players in here, I've yet to find some that gives this much importance to a selected group of players, so is my opinion that Benfica also doesn't need it.

Over the second thing, again repeating myself, I've own the magazine that serves as reference and it does not mention start date and end date of captaincy. It's just a list of 54 players and their data, one of those datas being games as captain. SLBedit just selected their period at the club and games as captain and build a table. Going into games as captain, isn't keeping track of information like that, a verifiability mess and, ultimately, just trivia? Basically baiting for a article like List of players by number of appearances as captain.

Since I've nominated the article to Featured List, resolving this issue is fundamental to promotion.--Threeohsix (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Since it's the second time I bring this and still doesn't get any answers, can I start adding similar selection of notable players to the articles of clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man Utd, Real Madrid, Barcelona. Listing of club legends in websites in apparently very common, but never really pick up here. Also, I'll start tagging as incomplete any list of captains that doesn't show number of games as captain.--Threeohsix (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It's up to the reviewers at FLC whether those tables are acceptable or necessary inclusions in a players list. It's some time since I've taken a player list to FLC, but relatively recent convention used to be that we were aiming for a complete roster, so just listed players by number of appearances, with no extras. Obviously for size reasons we had to split into 2 or 3 lists, for long-lived clubs, 100+, 25–100, 1–24 is fairly standard.

If the "legends" list is something official, then it can either be a list on its own, as with York City F.C. Clubman of the Year or List of Norwich City F.C. Hall of Fame members, and/or members of it can be footnoted in the standard players list; but if it's just a feature on the club website, without any existence in the real world outside that website, then it shouldn't be recognised at all. With captains, again they could be listed separately, or footnoted on the main players list(s); it'd need a clear definition of what constituted being a captain, and explicit sourcing.

And I can see why you're irritated that nobody answered your requests, but I'd advise against going round imposing random lists of players on articles stable without them, or tagging random articles as incomplete. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That selection of Benfica players doesn't look like a formal "Hall of Fame", or whatever, so I'd lean towards not highlighting this selection. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What's exactly the problem with listing club captains? It's relevant information. The list of notable players provided by Benfica's official website is also relevant. You saying that the list is somehow outdated because it doesn't include Simão Sabrosa or Óscar Cardozo doesn't matter. Maybe the list only includes players that played in the 20th century. SLBedit (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Threeohsix reverted me saying there is consensus. Where is it? SLBedit (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on auto-assessment of articles

See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. Please feel free to comment on the discussion. It would be helpful to know if your WikiProject would be interested in auto-assessment. ~ Rob^Talk 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Standings Updater Excel Template

Hi all, there is a discussion in the Module talk:Sports table regarding an excel file to update the Module talk:Sports table in a less time-consuming way. Please do check and try it out, and any feedback's are welcome. You can check the discussion and the link to the excel file here. Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Guam (2)

About Guam, I find an information which is amazing : Guam is a former member of OFC, but no proof. As Guam was in South Pacific games between 1975 and 1991, someone wrote it was a member. Guam and OFC is it true? FCNantes72 (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Where do we say that Guam was a member of OFC? There's no evidence that it was that I know of. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

A Little Humor

I found this in my Facebook feed this morning. Enjoy. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, the robot looks good enough to play in Serie A. Number 57 11:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Module:Sports table vs Template:fb cl

Looking for some sort of consensus from the community here: Should the use of Module:Sports Table for league tables be mandated?

The project MOS states that Module:Sports Table is preferred. The template page for each fb cl template states deprecated in favour of Module:Sports Table and refers to this project. The two seem a little inconsistent.

I'm sure there was a page somewhere ticking off the "conversions" for all top flight leagues linked off the WP:FOOTY page. Can't find it now, though.

There are still instances of top flight leagues for this year being created using the deprecated templates: here, here.

Apologies if there is already a consensus in the archives. My searching skills are not great, as I already mentioned. Would appreciate pointing in the right direction. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gricehead: Not sure I can link to a special discussion saying "this will be used" but as far as I am aware there exists an consensus to use Module:Sports table. I am myself working to convert the Olympic games in 2016 to the module (all sports), and I follow all European top level leagues at User:Qed237/sandbox4. The conversion, when introduced was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season/Table conversion and discussed at that talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Qed237. I think that's good enough for me. I've posted at the talk pages for 2016 Brazil Série A/B/C and will convert if there's no opposition. Gricehead (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

An essay

Following the furore at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife, I've written an essay on footballer notability. Comments/additional questions welcome. Cheers, Number 57 17:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks for taking the time to write and share your thoughts.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Good piece. I also have an interest in women's football and sport generally, but agree with your rationale as set out here. Jellyman (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Laughable nonsense, especially the last question which smacks of: "some of my best friends are black". Bring back Regi Blinker (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet.

• I don't really see the point in writing essays to defend misogynistic WP:BIAS. We should be looking for ways to fix the bias, not perpetuate it. Nfitz (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Neither do I, which is why I didn't try to defend a guideline like WP:NRU which has different standards for male and female players. However, I'm still yet to hear a decent argument as to why some uncapped semi-professional players are notable and others aren't, or a feasible alternative to the current guideline. Number 57 14:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I also don't agree either with 57's perspective, but I don't think it's correct to insult him for writing an essay. We should be encouraging these type of discussions in civil ways. 57 also makes a valid point in that no feasible alternatives have yet been brought up.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No one has insulted Number 57 - they have every right to defend misogyny. As for a decent argument? Because it's not 1980 any more. Females are grossly under-represented in this project - and that alone is enough reason to remove biased ways of excluding them, even when they are playing at the highest level of the sport. Nfitz (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• My alternative would be to expand the scope of WP:FPL to include top divisions (male or female) of all countries, except for microstates. This then avoids the problem of "what about players in the top division of Faroe Islands"? I think the smallest country by population that currently has a league within FPL is Cyprus (population circa 1,100,000). The cutoff used in the microstates article is 500,000. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would support @Jmorrison230582:'s proposal. WP:FPL is itself an essay and as noted at the top of it "The lists are currently incomplete and some entries are lacking sources" anyhow. It's been that way for years. Hmlarson (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this can work; drawing a line to try and cut out "microstates" is inevitably arbitrary and a cut-off of 500,000 leads to silly situations like excluding Icelandic top division players (average attendance 1,107, national team qualified for the Euros) but including Luxembourg (average attendance 469, national team useless). It would also mean Estonian top division flight players (who play in front of crowds of 325) were included but Faroese ones (418) excluded. The size of a country isn't related to the notability of footballers – it's the level of interest. If people think professional status isn't a good enough indicator of this, how about attendances? This is a clear reflection of the level of interest in the game (and therefore players' notability) and stats are readily available for a lot of leagues. A cut-off point of somewhere between 1–2,000 would seem reasonable. Number 57 18:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've previously suggested (at least twice!) expanding the FPL list to include non-professional top-level leagues in countries where the sport is so popular that it merits it for GNG purposes (which is what NFOOTBALL) does e.g. Ireland, possibly Iceland - and that would include a few extra women's leagues. Not sure about Scotland but definitely England and arguably Australia as well. GiantSnowman 19:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: What is your proposed measure of popularity? Hmlarson (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It would no doubt be a long and complex process, which is why it's never taken off, but looking at population size, attendance size, media coverage, prize money etc. GiantSnowman 06:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• I definitely think something needs to change in this area. It seems nuts to me that under current rules Lamar Powell is notable, thanks to his grand total of four minutes on the field for Bristol Rovers, but Kasia Lipka is not, despite having played more games for a single team in the FA WSL than anyone else, and being capped by England at under-23 level. I'd be in favour of expanding WP:NFOOTY to include players from top-flight leagues, provided sufficient secondary sources are available for that league. This would certainly help with the problem of WP:FPL causing the exclusion of female players (and also of male & female players from poorer countries that don't have the cash for a fully professional league!). I think it would even be worth considering whether all nationwide divisions (e.g. National League & FA WSL 2 in England) should be included, again with the proviso that adequate sources exist for that league. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 11:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • How would you define "sufficient secondary sources", and how would you get around systematic bias against developing countries where online sources are often almost non-existent? Number 57 12:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    • To be honest I think attendance is not even a that bad solution. But it's off course where you put the treshold. In my country if you have attendances of over 200/250 newspapers will pick up the matches and write about players in the competition. So if you would come up with a 400 average spectators amount p. competition for men and a 200 average spectators amount for women (or even both 200), that would fit my opinion - since then about 20 women's leagues in the world would qualify. But if you put the treshold on 500 for both men and women or so, only 4/5 competitions in women's football would qualify again. So we are again stuck with an undervaluation of women's football - simply because there is this vicious circle of the world being biased to men, with that news being biased, just some countries with policies to correct the bias, ending up with less interest (because of biased media coverage), ending with lower wages and attendances, leaving only the professional behaviour of the ladies (doing all for football / their sport, while no money), relatively spending far more training hours (professionalism) p. euro earned - just to operate on the top level. Funafuti1978 (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
      • If we had a threshold of 400 for men's football it would mean going down to level 6 in English football, adding three semi-pro divisions. I would say it should be at least 1,000 (and for both genders – we should not be doing positive discrimination). Regardless of the reasons for the variations in coverage, coverage itself is the key. Number 57 13:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

We should remember that WP:GNG still applies so someone like Kasia Lipka would, I think, probably scrape into justifying an article (see [11]; [12]; [13]). Certainly, if there were two or three more articles like this then she would.

I'm not sure what the solution is. On the one hand, these guidelines fundamentally favour men's sport over women's. On the other hand, this fundamental favouring is not of our creation; it's a social, not a Wikipedian, cause. The question is the extent to which we modify our guidelines to adapt to this. I don't think it's a good enough to just wash our hands and say "it's not our problem" - we need to remember that we are editing the 6th biggest website in the world, and arguably the 3rd biggest (after Youtube and Facebook) on which sport content is created.

I wonder if there's a case to be made for adding to WP:NFOOTY that, after sufficient discussion, we can determine that playing in a certain, named league or club competition, perhaps after 1 or a given number of appearances, can make a footballer notable. We could then discuss whether (say) 20+ WSL1 apperances makes a footballer notable. This would also be open, then, for people making cases for other semi-professional top level men's and women's leagues. But what it wouldn't do is create an arbitrary general guideline that would open up too many articles. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Qualification

Should we in league tables display the "current" qualification system or just the certain spots. For example in the Template:2015–16 Premier League table we currently display the sixth-placed team in Europa League as Manchester City (league cup winners) is 3rd and if they are top5, their spot will be given to sixth-placed team. But they could theoretically finish outside top6 and then the sixth-placed team would not qualify.

So list how the spots are divided based on current league positions or just the decided spots (i.e. only display 6th as EL if/when Manchester City is assured of top 6)? Qed237 (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

To clarify: my view is that for 'qualification' indication, we only list what's confirmed. This would fit with our practice of not listing as champions teams who are 3 points clear, with one game to go and +20 goal difference advantage. As Man City won't definitely finish in the top 5, 6th place is not yet a Europa League spot. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else with an opinion? Qed237 (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As there is a lack of interest, I'm happy to consider current practice consensus. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

TSV 1860 München vs. TSV 1860 Munich

The naming convention for sports teams states:

1. The name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website,
2. The name has been adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media and it is recognizable,
3. The name is not easily confused with other clubs' names.

I couldn't find any official english website. Therefore, the first point can't really have any influence in the discussion since they don't have an english website. Here, here, and here are three examples where the media clearly has Munich instead of München. The second point favour the switch. I don't see anything confusing with the switch. MephistoGF seems to like using Munich in player articles and Calistemon may have reservations over the name change, or at the very least wants a consensus discussion about it. Kingjeff (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

To be more precise, I voiced my opposition against the article being moved without any consensus and the categories being left at the old name, with no move request to the new title being raised. Also none of the templates in the article were updated to the new name. I have no preference as far as the article name goes but I think it should be done properly so we don't have TSV 1860 Munich and Category:TSV 1860 München. A requested move, followed by an updating of the template links and a move request for the categories once consensus has been obtained would be preferred. Calistemon (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your statement Kingjeff. I support using the English denomination for several reasons. First – as Kingjeff has pointed out – it is common 1860 Munich is common in English language media (another examle). Second the English denomination is consistently used with FC Bayern Munich. There several players, who have played for both teams, and their articles would look quite awkward when they're referring to Bayern Munich, but 1860 München. Best --MephistoGF (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

To open the request properly and allow more input Template:Requested move should be used and the TSV 1860 München II article included in the discussion as well. The discussion should than take place at the talk page of the primary article, for future record. Not here. Precise instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Calistemon (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A proper requested move process has been started by me at the articles talk page, please continue this discussion there. Calistemon (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually started it here because there is a better opportunity for discussion here than having it there. Kingjeff (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The rules for Requested moves are very clear, it goes on the articles talk page. See WP:RM#CM on how it is done. Calistemon (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The very first sentence at WP:RM#CM says "use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." I don't see any reason why the new title will be contested. You mentioned to me about the consensus debate over the article name for Inter Milan. It's clearly more debatable which name Inter Milan than it is for 1860 Munich. We are only here because you insist on having consensus on the article name. You stated that you have "no preference as far as the article name goes." So, you really haven't contested the name change. You only contested that I didn't use WP:RM#CM. And you also contested the fact that categories, article names, and so on didn't get switched. Why not just ask me to switch them over? MephistoGF clearly states that As I have shown above, it clearly meets the two applicable points in the guideline. You took issue how some categories, article pages, and so on didn't get switched over to the new name. So, how about we just do everything now? Kingjeff (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Because when an article has had a set name for its whole existence, 12 years, moving it should be done with some consensus and includ all associated categories, pages (reserve team) and have all the template links modified. You were bold, I reverted, now it is being discussed. In seven days from now, when a clear consensus has, hopefully, be established, it can be moved. There is a couple of procedures that should be followed and, after the article sitting at its old name for so long, there is certainly no need to rush this now. Calistemon (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

But according to the guideline, München should never have been used in the first place. The article creator made a bad choice. I gave three examples of where the second point applies. MephistoGF gave a fourth example. Can some show that I am wrong about point two? Unless it is easily confused with other clubs' names, then there is no need for discussion. Kingjeff (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe it's good that we are now undergoing a proper process. So far no one opposed a switch, so I believe we will easily reach consensus. --MephistoGF (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 Indian Super League season and Kerala Blasters FC

Hey guys, long time since I posted here. Anyway, there is an IP who keeps changing the stadium for Kerala Blasters from the Nehru Stadium to the Greenfield Stadium even though there is no proof that they are changing venues for the 2016 season. This IP only changed it once since I warned him but knowing my past when it comes from IP users in India, it takes awhile before the get the hint. I don't want to get in trouble with WP:3RR so if someone could help monitor these two pages with me that would be great, cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Football non-playing staff in England by club

Some of the sub-categories within explicitly state that "Managers are excluded, as they have their own category". I was wondering what the rationale for this was? Would a coach who went on to be appointed manager, who even a manager who returned to a club as an assistant or something warrant being included in both categories?--EchetusXe 15:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. GiantSnowman 09:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Score overview

Hey, is something like this or this really needed? Kante4 (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I find it not needed. // Psemmler (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like overkill - presenting the same info twice. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Any more input? Kante4 (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen the term double used to describe winning both games against the same opponents in a season, only in the context of Double (association football). I don't think it is really necessary. The same information could be mentioned through prose. Club X won both of their season games against z, y and z. Calistemon (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"Doing the double over so-and-so F.C." is a pretty common term in English football at least - see here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, showing my lack of knowledge again, thanks for letting me know. It even says so in the double article! Calistemon (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It can be mentioned in the Prose of course but having an extra table is not needed in my view. Kante4 (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else here. Assuming the scores are adequately covered elsewhere in the article, tables like these don't really add anything meaningful. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

So, we agreed and those should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I'm on board with that. – PeeJay 16:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Should I merge this task force with WP Football/India?

I recently saw that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Mohun Bagan task force was created. Personally I don't see much of a need for a task force for the club. There is only one participant and would probably be better served under the India task force overall. Thoughts? Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

IP vandal

Please take note of the following IP editor: Special:Contributions/49.143.151.98 --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Somebody has been busy. I've undone everything they've done today that was still current. Still more to do, though. Gricehead (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's got rid of the current crop of made up players this IP has embedded into club and country articles. If any one sees him/her again, please warn them (level 3 next). If everyone who had reverted today had warned, we could have been at wp:aiv by now. Gricehead (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gricehead: Active again after a short block. I have reverted and warned the IP. Calistemon (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Bolton U

Thomas Hill played for 'Bolton U' until 1921, according to the Terry Frost book about Bradford City - any idea what team that was? I half-suspect it might be a typo for Bolton W... GiantSnowman 18:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Football League Players' Records 1888-1939" by Michael Joyce lists him as playing for Bolton United prior to Bradford. The FCHD doesn't list this club, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A club of this name apparently currently plays in the Mid Lancs League, no idea if it is the same club.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've just Googled them - no idea about if they're the same club...but thanks for the help! GiantSnowman 20:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Page 125 in the Joyce book if you want to cite that. It also indicates that he was commonly known as Tommy, rather than Thomas -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, have done. GiantSnowman 20:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

There was a Bolton Utd based in Bolton upon Dearne (Barnsley) who entered the FA Cup in 1920/21 (select season from dropdown and then look in preliminary round) and played in West Riding county competitions, which might be more likely by location and existence at the relevant time. Joyce's book also says that Mr Hill went on to York City after Walsall. List of York City F.C. players (1–24 appearances) has a redlinked Tommy Hill (footballer), who may be the same chap, so perhaps Mattythewhite may be able to add something? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Citizens and Minstermen lists Bolton United as one of his clubs, but doesn't provide any more detail about them. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for categorization

Hi, the category Category:Welsh footballers contains mainly men footballers. However the category also include the category Category:Welsh women's footballers, while there is not a category Category:Welsh men's footballers. Several of my edits when I added Category:Welsh sportsmen to articles were reverted by GiantSnowman. And this is not only for Welsh footballers, but for all the footballers. So when you are searching footballers via Category:Dutch sportsmen or Category:German sportsmen you will never find all the footballers. When asking about this he responded because the men's sport is far more dominant, there is no need to gender-fy the category. Because I think this argument is not fair, I think all men's categories should be created. And the categories of the men's footballers being moved from X --> Y(see below).

What is your opinion about this? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC makes the addition of men's to the categories unnecessary. At present men's football is far more prominent then women's. Calistemon (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, men's football is the default.--EchetusXe 21:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A notable exception from that is in North America of course, and we already have United States men's national soccer team per WP:COMMONNAME '''tAD''' (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

A-League - Bits and pieces

Which is the better way to present the honours for (in this case) Adelaide United FC, this one (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_S%C3%A1nchez_(Spanish_footballer)&diff=718069426&oldid=718052567) or this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_S%C3%A1nchez_(Spanish_footballer)&diff=718180438&oldid=718172285)? I think it is the latter (the correct dashes notwithstanding), I am well aware that there is a play-off stage in Australia, but Adelaide were the winners of the 2015/16 season overall, correct?

Thus, I think "A-League: 2015-16" should be more than enough, I admit I am not discussing the stuff with the other user, but neither are they. A light went off in my poor brain and I thought I'd come here before this escalates. If I was in the wrong, please explain me so it won't happen again and accept my apologies.

Attentively, thanks in advance --Be Quiet AL (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Adelaide technically won two trophies in this A-League season - the Premiership (regular season) and Championship (finals). As such "A-League: 2015–16" is somewhat ambiguous. As I understand it the format should be "A-League Premiership: 2015–16" and "A-League Championship: 2015–16". Unfortunately there are some examples of where editors have not used this approach but I have been aiming to work through this at some point soon. Macosal (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What Macosal said, in my opinion, but consider linking to the relevant section of the A-League articles rather than just repeating the same link. If they won two different (albeit connected) things, then the reader needs to see that they won two things. The article could do with a sourced sentence to say they won them, as well. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I reckon that the A-League finals series is more akin to the League Cup than anything else, tbh; whereas the league is... Well... The league... - J man708 (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You're comparing apples with oranges. It's a completely different model to England. Hack (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

FAI Women's Cup

I am concerned by the recent edits to FAI Women's Cup by User:Bring back Regi Blinker. I suspect the edits regarding pre-1989 finals maybe bogus. The user has been identified as a sockpocket. His posts are referenced with sources that are not easily checkable. I am reluctant to just remove them. Any suggestions ? Djln Djln (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The results though were given by user Cattivi on the talk page. The picture looks legit too. -Koppapa (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not saying they are not legit. I just think they need to be double checked. Anything posted by a sockpuppet should not be trusted. This particular user has been blocked several times but keeps resurfacing. Djln Djln (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bring back Regi Blinker has been blocked as a sock. GiantSnowman 17:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Should be easy to check for one who has access to the newspaper archive. -Koppapa (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead reverted the relevant edit as best I could. If changes made turn out to be constructive, they may of course be reinstated by someone who actually standing to do so. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

All edits were ok in my view. -Koppapa (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The edits were made by the sockpuppet, but she made them on the basis of sources supplied at the article's talk page by Cattivi, an editor in good standing. I've verified all those sources myself on the Irish Times archive, and am convinced by the image of the page from the match programme, which we can all see, so I've reinstated the content. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC0

I have full access to the Irish Times digital archive through Proquest. They all look FAI Women's cup finals to me, Apart from this cup competition there seems to be only one other major cup competition for women in the eighties, the Presidents Cup, that started somewhere in the early eighties. Cattivi (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• It seems that the additional finals added might be legit. I just doubted the editor, a known sockpuppet, rather then the original source provider, Cattivi/Irish Times. It may also be worth searching the Irish Independent/Irish Newspaper archives for further finals. Does anybody have free access. Djln Djln (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Doherty (footballer) and notability

At the behest of a contributor to an AfD regarding this player/manager, I'm here to help get clarification on some issues. I want to make it excruciatingly clear that I am not here as any sort of canvassing attempt. I am not here to garner votes in any particular direction on the AfD, and I'm not here to muddy any pictures people might conclude on the AfD. With that out of the way...

This player/manager has had an interesting career playing on the Irish national level and on the International (UEFA Champions League) level. He's been manager of Shelbourne F.C. for two years now. I honestly do not understand how anyone could conclude that he fails WP:NFOOTY, since he has clearly participated (in fact was a starter) for Shelbourne F.C. (then a professional team) in a UEFA qualifying round game. I'm further confused that somehow this particular person fails to deserve an article on Wikipedia when...

• A very large number of managers of this club have their own articles Shelbourne_F.C.#Notable_former_managers
• We have large categories dedicated to all manner of Irish players such as Category:League of Ireland managers with 188 articles, Category:League of Ireland players with 1,323 articles, and many other categories with significant numbers of articles dedicated to Irish football players. Yet, according to the arguments being presented on the AfD, not a single one of them...not ONE of the articles in those categories...deserves to be on Wikipedia unless those players player for teams outside of their country (not counting the very few who played for the national team).
• We have a 279 member Category:Shelbourne F.C. players

Why have any of these articles if Irish football players have no hope of every being notable unless they've played outside the borders of Ireland? I'm not suggesting an othercrapexists argument. But surely if so many articles (well north of a thousand) exist in support of Irish football players, there's got to be some guideline, written down or not, that speaks to the notability of Irish players and managers. It's like there's some hidden rule that says Ireland football is a black hole that no one shall speak of, and every article about it is doomed to deletion at some point.

What am I missing? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a clear NFOOTY failure – the guideline explicitly refers to international matches – i.e. the national team. Claiming that this covers continental club matches is a fairly obvious case of wikilawyering. We've had numerous AfDs on League of Ireland players over the years and most have resulted in deletion, so it's clear that there's a community consensus that such players aren't notable. The question, as ever, is where do you draw the line if you allow LOI players. Number 57 19:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Wikilawyering? I come asking for clarification and I get accused of wikilawyering? Look, I didn't come here to have a second forum for the AfD. If you want to delete the article, be my ever-living guest and vote to delete to your hearts content on the AfD. In the meantime, my questions remain unanswered. Please don't bother replying to this thread if you're not interested in dealing with the larger question. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If trying to argue for an obtuse interpretation of a guideline to suit your argument isn't wikilawyering, what is? Your argument about WP:NFOOTY seems to meet at least one of the four criteria at WP:WL. And I did address the larger question – if LOI players are deemed notable despite not playing in a fully-professional league, where do you draw the line? I've never had a satisfactory answer to this question, which is why I still support the guideline as it stands. Number 57 19:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Should this article have the notability tag re-added as we have a responsibility to let readers know this player may not meet the nobility requirements.. It was reverted here Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you 57, for further accusing me of having obtuse interpretations. When you can decide to stop insulting people, perhaps we can have a conversation. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible hoax article

A new editor asserts that the Kham football team article is a hoax and I thought I'd check with the football experts to see if you agreed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Liz: I'm no expert, but a casual search turns up nothing convincing. I did find this, which is rather hysterical. Under "Official uniform" it shows a picture of a team from Kiribati, a team thousands of miles away from Tibet. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed the official photo where the team is all wearing hats. I will speedy this as a hoax article then. Thanks for the response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Liz That would be great thanks. I prodded it as a probable hoax, but the fact no-one here believes it exists is confirmation IMO that it's a hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability of managers in youth international competitions

Is it fair to say that people managing a team at the UEFA European Under-17 Championship or UEFA European Under-21 Championship (with no prior professional experience) will not meet the requirements of WP:Footy but will meet the requirements of WP:GNG? In particular, I'm referring to Steve Cooper (football manager), a Welsh former semi-pro but now the England coach at a UEFA competition.TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's important to understand the relationship between NFOOTY and GNG. If anything passes GNG, failing NFOOTY can't trump that. Where NFOOTY comes in is that if a person passes NFOOTY, then it is a very safe presumption that GNG is assured, even if sources aren't available on the article now. Failing NFOOTY doesn't immediately preclude inclusion. Failing GNG and NFOOTY does. It would appear in this case the person in question does not pass NFOOTY, but might pass GNG. More sources need to be found to support notability under GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• TheBigJagielka Playing or managing in those tournaments isn't enough to pass WP:NFOOTY, as they aren't Tier 1 matches or fully professional leagues. However, it might be the case that they pass WP:GNG, as they might well generate significant coverage by playing/managing in those tournaments. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

DFB-Pokal article moves

User:Secret Agent Julio moved nine DFB-Pokal season articles to a new name (1962–63 DFB-Pokal to 1963 DFB-Pokal for example) with the reasoning that they took place in a single season only. I contacted the user but had no reply so rather than just reverting I raise the question here. The German football federation (DFB) lists them in the autumn-winter format, as can be seen in its official winners list, which makes me think the moves were incorrect. While the statement that they only took part during a single calendar year is partly correct, 1963 went from June to August 1963, it ignores the regional qualifying competitions beforehand to determined the 16 clubs entering the first round proper. What is the general consensus about the move? Calistemon (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I had a reply from Secret Agent Juliosince and here is a little more info: The DFB has the DFB- and Tschammerpokal in the YYYY/YY format, see 1936/37 for example, but it is important to remember that the DFB did not exist than and did not organise the tournaments during the Nazi era, only the ones after 1952. Another reliable source, kicker, vindicates Secret Agent Julio's moves as it has them in the format they were moved to. Interestingly, for the Tschammerpokal, kicker has 5 editions in the YYYY format and 4 in the YYYY/YY one. Calistemon (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Benfica's "curse" in European Cup finals

As most should know, Benfica was cursed in 1962 by Béla Guttmann saying that the club will not be European champions for 100 years. In 2013 and 2014 lost two more European finals, and although they were for the Europa League, the talk of the curse was still consensual in international press, see a search for benfica european curse or benfica european curse extended. But obviously SLBedit didn't think so, and removed any mentions of the curse in the recent finals at S.L. Benfica in European football with this edit. Since the references specifically mention the curse, it's not a thing of verifiability, but of POV. Debating this with them would be a waste of time, what are the community input?--Threeohsix (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's factual, not POV. Bad journalism is bad. SLBedit (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Mention of the "curse" still exists in the lead, so there is no POV pushing going on. However, I agree that it is inappropriate to call their inability to win a championship "cursed," no more so than the Boston Red Sox were truly cursed with the Curse of the Bambino. That statement, while not necessarily POV, is not encyclopedic, though mentioning the original curse is. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

wrong uefa coefficients for CL 16/17 page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016–17_UEFA_Champions_League

the editor who added the uefa coefficients for the clubs in the champions & league route apparently doesn't know that the (already established) 2015 ranking will be used for the seeding, not the (still in progress) 2016 ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.129.230 (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

What coefficients (what teams) are wrong? Qed237 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Also please note that the 2015 ranking is for seeding the nations, while the 2016 ranking is used for the teams. Qed237 (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sekou Oliseh

I'm in a slow-burning edit war with @Astristul:, who is unable to provide a source confirming that Oliseh has won a league title (having played no games for the team...). Extra eyes welcome please. GiantSnowman 18:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete German football clubs seasons

Hi all, I have been looking at German football clubs seasons but sadly seems like a lot of them are incomplete or have just minimum amount of content. Should these article be proposed for deletion or kept in its current state?

Some examples:

• 2015–16 FC St. Pauli season
• 2015–16 SC Fortuna Köln season
• 2013–14 1. FC Union Berlin season
• 2013–14 SpVgg Unterhaching season
• 2013–14 Fortuna Düsseldorf season
• 2013–14 VfR Aalen season
• 2012–13 VfR Aalen season
• 2012–13 SV Wacker Burghausen season

Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say notify the creators to give them a chance to improve them and if nothing happens in the near future nominate for deletion. Calistemon (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If they aren't providing information then they aren't necessary. Are there articles in German about each season- if so, you could add the Expand Language template to them. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly advise editors against nominating any of these articles for deletion, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. All seem notable per WP:NSEASONS, whether an article is half finished or not is not a reason for deletion. Fenix down (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Fenix down. Rather than PRODing the articles, why not add to them? The creators don't own them. Adding them to my lengthy to do list myself (which shouldn't preclude other users doing the same) Gricehead (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gricehead: Unfortunately not all editors have the time or effort to complete those articles. Some even are already 3 years old! I had this kind of discussion about season articles couple of years ago, and the result was to delete all outdated club season articles. @Secret Agent Julio and Kingjeff: Pinging for comments. MbahGondrong (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Late May and June may be a good period to deal with these articles since the current club seasons will be over in most of Europe and next season articles will not need much attention. kicker magazine's website retains historical season references. Kingjeff (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kingjeff: You seem to have created some articles without finishing them, do you intend to complete them? Or maybe else some of the less-completed articles should be listed for deletion? Here are a few examples:

1. 2008–09 SV Werder Bremen season
2. 2012–13 SV Wacker Burghausen season
3. 1974–75 Borussia Mönchengladbach season
4. 2012–13 F91 Dudelange season
5. 2012–13 Chemnitzer FC season
6. 2012–13 Arminia Bielefeld season
7. 2012–13 1. FC Saarbrücken season
8. 2012–13 FC Wacker Innsbruck season
9. 1998–99 Hertha BSC season
10. 1976–77 Hertha BSC season

@MbahGondrong: I apologise for not updating those articles yet, as I did not have the time to complete them prior. I do plan on finishing updating them, so I hope I could have a bit of time to try and complete them before they are considered for deletion. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Secret Agent Julio: No need to apologize, you are doing an awesome job already with updating club season articles. I would propose to not delete the articles until end of June, when competitions are finished, to give a chance for the outdated articles to be updated. After that maybe a PROD should be considered for outdated articles? MbahGondrong (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

2012–13 F91 Dudelange season isn't a German season. Do we know if this is a fully professional season? Kingjeff (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kingjeff: They play in the Luxembourg National Division which is not professional. MbahGondrong (talk)

Sean "Dragonn" Allen

Can anyone confirm if they agree with me and that I am not being overly zealous in reverting the addition of an e-sports player per this edit. I see him on no official squad lists, and very much doubt he deserves to be listed in the "First Team". I don't think I saw any discussion on David Bytheway signing for Wolfsburg in a similar situation for instance to compare with. Koncorde (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, he's not a registered player with any sincere ambitions of playing. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Football Kit

Port Vale F.C. have got a unique home kit for next season. Can someone make it please? I don't know how to do these things.--EchetusXe 23:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Scott Weinberg

Hi! I was wondering if any of you would be interested in looking at Scott Weinberg to see if he'd pass WP:NFOOTY. I'm not overly familiar with the guideline but the article does claim that he played professionally. This could probably use some TLC from someone who knows where to look for sources, since I'm not really bringing up anything offhand - but then I also don't really know where to look for this sort of thing. Offhand I'm thinking it could probably be AfD'd due to the lack of coverage, but then I wanted to ask here just in case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: - doesn't look to meet GNG or NFOOTBALL, no non-notable IMO. GiantSnowman 07:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Cool - I just wanted to double check. I'll take this to AfD then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTY interpretation – Tier 1 International Matches

It has been claimed in an AfD that the first WP:NFOOTY criteria ("Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA") includes appearances/management in continental club competitions. I would encourage members of the project to give their views on this interpretation of the guideline in the AfD in question, as it may have consequences for future deletion discussions. Cheers, Number 57 22:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for asking for this Number 57. It appears the crux of the disagreement lies between whether a Tier 1 International Match is by default only possible if national teams are involved (e.g. Germany) or if such a match occurs if top representative teams from different national associations are involved. Arguments for both views exist on the AfD. In the former case, only players that have played for national football teams or in fully professional leagues would pass WP:NFOOTY. In the latter case, players who have played for professional teams that have played in top level competitions (such as UEFA CL would pass WP:NFOOTY if they had not already done so in the former case. A descendant question, one which I've not been able to find a definitive statement one way or the other, is whether FIFA administers or otherwise overseas UEFA CL matches, and if so do they consider them to be Tier 1 matches. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments in the AfD have made it pretty clear this is not what "Tier 1 International Match" means. Either way, a discussion is irrelevant. The purpose of that clause as demonstrated through thousands of AfDs is to convey the message that a player is notable if they have played senior international football in a match recognised by FIFA, i.e. between two nations. Fenix down (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a gap in WP:NFOOTY (in my opinion) which means that a player who has represented a notable club in a UEFA continental competition, but not in the league, isn't notable. It took me 30 seconds to find one: Joe Riley (footballer, born 1996). I'm sure there are more. I would like to see NFOOTY updated to include post-qualification stages of continental competitions.

We have generally extended the criteria of point 2 to cover cup matches between two teams from FPLs. Number 57 10:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

NFOOTY definitely needs clarifying, there is too great a level of presumed knowledge regarding AfD-driven consensus. Point 2 needs to be expanded to say something which states that players who have played in the non-qualifying rounds of national / continental cup competitions in games between teams from one or more FPLs are deemed notable. Fenix down (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Well, at least one positive thing is coming out of this AfD. I think the 'gap' in NFOOTY is enormous. If that strict interpretation were to hold sway (as it apparently has), the only players who are ever notable are those who've played in the Olympics or in FIFA titled events. Any other player has absolutely no chance of being a notable football player. Frankly, I find that insulting to all the players who, for whatever reason, never made it to their national team to a FIFA titled event. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

On this point, I think there should be discussion about revising WP:NFOOTY so that it does not rely on FIFA terminology, as such reliance means the terminology can then be wikilawyered to oblivion and back and it's just a complete waste of time and resources - as demonstrated by the AfD in question. The fact that there can be 4,000-ish words of contentious debate on something so trivial is scary to me. --Sesameball^Talk 20:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of National League clubs seasons

Yesterday a number of non-league clubs seasons was PROded, so I decided to PROD some other articles of the same type to attract more attention to this question. And to try to finally reach a consensus in this slow-flowing dispute. Lets summarise what we have for now:
1) Of course, the main things we can rely here are WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG.
2) As the first nominator mentions some of the articles of such type were deleted recently.
3) For this season all the National League clubs has the season articles, the articles mostly are up to date, though lack of well-sourced prose is obvious.
4) Think that this discussion, resulted nothing, is worthy of mention here.
5) Some other discussions took place early in this season to prevent a waste of time of editors, but all of them are resulted nothing too.

As for my opinion, I believe the term 'fully professional league' leaded to this situation because it is quite unclear. Talking about reliable sources and the coverage of the fifth tier: BBC for years consider Conference/National League notable and suitable for covering both matches and club news, so I can't see the reasons not to place a cut-off line below the National League. Hope that we'll reach consensus this time, Martinklavier (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that I could quite easily write an extremely well-referenced article as good as the National League ones on the club I support playing at level eight, so in my opinion, we need to have some other method of deciding the cut-off point that how well referenced an article is or can be. For the moment I have stuck to prodding season articles of clubs that have not been in the Football League, as they are less likely to be contentious (I did prod the Gateshead one for 2016–17, but realistically this is not the same club that played in the FL). I can see that deleting articles on clubs who have spent almost their entire history in the FL but had one or two seasons in the Conference is likely to be more contentious, so I hope any deprods of the ones you have just prodded (e.g. Luton) does not justify deprodding one on (e.g.) Braintree or Ebbsfleet United. Number 57 18:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You could write a well-sourced article about eight tier club. But i suppose that it would be based mostly on primary sources - official club site, maybe some local newspaper - you can't compare it with nationwide coverage we have for NL, agree? And at the moment it is equal for ALL the clubs in the division, for both large and smaller ones. Of course, I can see your logic in what articles you have chosen, but all I want for this moment is a clear rule or cut-off line. Today we have nothing to make a separation - which articles can be saved, and which cant. WP:NSEASONS in its current form does not distinguish between Braintree and Bristol Rovers. Martinklavier (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Based on local papers – but they are not primary sources. Plus as far as I'm aware, there's no difference in terms of the validity of the source – it just has to be independent and reliable. Number 57 19:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, there's no difference for an existing article. I proposed presense or absence of nationwide coverage as clearer (than idea of 'fully prefessional league') decisive factor - should we delete an article or keep it. So, do you have an idea how to separate Bristol Rovers from Braintree, without creating separate AfD for every NL club season article? Martinklavier (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've given my rationale already for not prodding some of the articles. Personally I would delete all Conference season articles as I prefer to have consistency in where lines are drawn, but that's not everyone's cup of tea. Number 57 19:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:NSEASONS states "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article." Has anyone considered doing this? This may be feasible for clubs relegated from the Football League. Kingjeff (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Football records in Spain again

I previously brought this up here, but the issue failed to yield any meaningful outcome. The crux of the issue is that there has been an ongoing edit war over whether or not records from the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup should be counted as official or not. Both involved parties have been blocked indefinitely, but one of them is engaged in sockpuppetry (both have been in the passed), leaving me in the awkward position of either allowing edits in evasion of a block to stand, or perpetuated the edit war myself, neither of which is a particularly good solution. Unless we get a clear community consensus on the issue, I fear this will continue. I should also add that the main controversy here has nothing to do with competition itself, but rather the fact that its inclusion or exclusion changes whether its Barcelona or Real Madrid who has won the most titles. In the mean time, could any admins about please protect the page and/or block 152.88.210.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The FIFA website (before its latest magnificent redesign) had club profiles that listed the club's major honours in a box, headed Major honours and with a footnote at the bottom saying The honours listed above are considered to be the club's major titles and, as such, are not intended to be a full list of achievements.

They do include the Fairs Cup. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, although it was the predecessor of the UEFA Cup/Europa League, and it wasn't technically the same competition because UEFA didn't run it, so by definition they don't count it among clubs' European record

the Fairs Cup is not considered a UEFA competition, and hence clubs' records in the Fairs Cup are not considered part of their European record

their Europa League history page comes as near as dammit to stating it is:

In 1968 Leeds United AFC became the first northern European outfit to lift the trophy, heralding a run of six successive victories by English teams. The fifth of these was in 1971/72, by Tottenham Hotspur FC, and the first to be known as the UEFA Cup. The change of name was recognition of the fact the competition was now organised by UEFA and no longer associated with the trade fairs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

And furthermore again, the association with trade fairs was dropped some years before the UEFA takeover, in favour of entry via league position, subject to the no more than one entrant per city rule (in England, at any rate).

I have little patience with these endless "my club's bigger than your club so long as we do/don't count a certain trophy" edit wars. It shouldn't be what an encyclopedia's about. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Football Leaks

Is there a reason why Football Leaks does not have an article? SLBedit (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it notable? What even is it? GiantSnowman 16:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Football Leaks is well known in Sweden and Germany as far as I know. // Psemmler (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It is also notable in Portugal. It has revealed documents that were supposed to be secret, mostly contracts of football players. SLBedit (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If if meets WP:GNG then create an article. GiantSnowman 20:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

On a quick Google search, it looks like they might be notable. Their leaks of player transfer values/wages seem to be covered in quite a few newspapers, and there's at least a couple of in-depth sources about them. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

SLBedit Created one now. If anyone is fluent in non-English languages, there's some more sources in Portugese & French that can be added. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Kaspars Dubra infobox

This is happening again. The short-term page protection doesn't really help. Can anyone suggest any other way of dealing with this? --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@BlameRuiner: I've semi-protected it for a year this time. If it happens again after that, I'll give it indefinite protection. Number 57 11:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

CFU U-20 Tournament

Should this article be proposed for deletion? Considering we have these CFU championships (usually) listed on the 2015 CONCACAF U-20 Championship qualifying article, or are we setting up for an individual expansion of these? I would prefer the latter but then again whatever makes the most sense collectively. Savvyjack23 (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Salisbury F.C. results

Guessing it's a bit much that Salisbury F.C. has its entire season's results as a section of its article? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree per WP:NOTSTATS and have removed them. Results should be presented in their own season article and then only if the season passes WP:NSEASONS or wider GNG. In this instance I don't think it would. Fenix down (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Club honours display in article

I made this edits. Am I right in removing that stuff? Would appreciate inputs just to confirm. Thanks FkpCascais (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no consensus over whether to exclude or include runner-up positions: editors have argued both ways. If anyone reverts you, I'd leave them. Equally if you want to remove them, then go for it. But I'd caution against any programme of removal - this doesn't have broad support from editors. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(That said - I'd have more confidence in removing unmedalled 3rd places/semi-finals). --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The note in the honours section at club article suggested style page says explicitly

"Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places."

That would rather discourage removing r/ups from a club with so few wins. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this also a suggestion for player honours sections? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a suggestion that some editors also follow for player honours, but it isn't written down in the players style guide. If you type runners up honours into the search box at the top of this page, you'll find quite a few previous discussions... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Struway2:. The thing is that in this case, we are talking about a club usually competing in the highest level, so for them being "runners-up" of the third league was not only a non-honor, but rather their worst season ever. Get my point? Se the diff. If it was some obscure minor club, being runners-up of some lower-leagues being an accomplishment for them, that would be OK, but in this case is dubious. FkpCascais (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't suppose the club I follow, who have spent about half their 113-year league history in the English top flight, were entirely thrilled about having the opportunity to come runners-up in the third tier, either, but when multiple independent reliable sources record them having done so in lists of their honours, I think I'd be adopting a seriously non-neutral point of view if I decided not to record it here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, @Struway2: I totally see your point now, great exemple. So just we could close this chapter, from my edit, from what you are saying, I should restore the runners-up, o'right, but not the rest please... cup semi-finalists? Third place of second and third leagues? My issue with this is to keep honors as honors, cause some editors make the honors section become a collection of best results, which I dont agree. FkpCascais (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

1997–98 La Liga

the 1997–98 La Liga table is damaged, repair it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.35.182 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Another IP was trying to do something with the table, and broke it. I reverted their edits. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

ok if I find another error 'll let you know thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.35.182 (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

FIFA country codes

After FIFA admitted Kosovo I have seen "KOS" being added for Kosovo everywhere such as FIFA country code. However, seeing the webadress used by FIFA (http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=kvx/index.html) has got me thinking and an IP editor has changed "KOS" to "KVX" at the country code article as well as Kosovo national football team. I have no idea what UEFA uses since their page for member associations (http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/leaguesandcups/index.html) does not yet display Kosovo, and I have not found any information. What should we use in our articles, for example 2016–17 UEFA Champions League, 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification, UEFA coefficient, and so on? Qed237 (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Until their participation in those competitions is confirmed they shouldn't be listed at all. If their participation is confirmed before they receive a trigram, just use "Kosovo" instead. – PeeJay 08:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Jason McCarthy

I have brought this up here before and am sorry to do so again, but the article on Jason McCarthy is still being edited regularly by User:31.53.182.143 to add an incorrect total of matches played for Wycombe Wanderers into the infobox. He sometimes uses other IP addresses; as he seems to be editing via a mobile device, these are probably the IP addresses of whatever bar he happens to be drinking at when he makes the edit. I have left messages (not always as polite as they should be) on his talk page (and those of most of his other IPs) but he never responds, nor does he ever make any edit summaries. Can this article be protected again (I realise that means I can't edit it)? Now that McCarthy's loan is ended, he will presumably return to Southampton, and perhaps the user will find another target for his edits. Thanks. 92.26.162.36 (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@92.26.162.36: - I've blocked the latest IP, if the vandal returns then please let me know and I'll protect the page. GiantSnowman 07:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. 92.26.162.36 (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Team of the autumn

Are templates like Template:2013-14 Nemzeti Sport Team of the Autumn Season, Template:2013-14 Nemzeti Sport Team of the Season notable? I f so they need serious fixing and moved to a name with correct dash. And that red is really strong and must violate MOS:ACCESS. Qed237 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Invite MCM heel who is creator of a lot of similar templates today. Qed237 (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Also please take a look at Dániel Böde and the honours section, which needs to be cleaned up. (I have removed some that was not notable). When looking more at templates above it seems like a newspaper award that is not notable. Qed237 (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nearly every award in football is a "newspaper award". The Nemzeti Sport is one of the most respected daily in Central Europe since 1903. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCM heel (talk • contribs) 11:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

And since why is the UEFA Euro 2016 is not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCM heel (talk • contribs) 12:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Winning a qualification play-off match is not an honour. Qed237 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

About 10 million Hungarians disagree with that, but okay. How can I delete my account? I don't want to be in Wikipedia anymore, because you are thinking too much about yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCM heel (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It's an achievement, but not an honour. An honour is winning a tournament- a playoff match is not a tournament. It's just a worse version of winning the qualifying group, which also isn't an honour. Not sure how QED is "thinking of himself" by not classing it as an honour.

Also, you can't delete an account, but can request a courtesy vanishing. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

QED is destroying everything, because he thinks he is the King of Wikipedia. The guy clearly knows nothing about the Hungarian football and still trolling. Thanks for the help how to I leave this page forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCM heel (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I deleted this thread, because I don't want to be in Wikipedia anymore... Please don't restore it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCM heel (talk • contribs)

@MCM heel: I am sorry if you feel that way, but I am just trying to follow wikipedia guidelines. Also I asked for help here at the football project to see what they think about the templates instead of putting them for deletion to give you a chance. This is about wikipedia guidelines and notability and not what a single editor thinks. Qed237 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: What do you think of the recent created templates? Qed237 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As an observation, it is surprising that navboxes for these awards have been created when not only is there no article for the award itself, the award is not even mentioned here. I'm not really seeing anything to indicate that this is an award that has received much coverage outside of its own newspaper. It would be useful if you could expand Nemzeti Sport to show notability of the award which would support the case for the need for these templates. Fenix down (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Qed237 I agree with what Fenix down has just posted- no current evidence the award is notable, if the award is deemed to be notable then that notability should be determined, and then maybe we could keep them. Right now, if someone nominated them for deletion, I'd 100% vote delete, as the award doesn't currently seem notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Statistics in season articles

In August 2014, there were two debates about the amount of information contained in season articles, one about player details and other for a attempt to create a MOS for club seasons. From the discussion, there was an apparent trend towards less stats and more focus on prose, but a clear consensus wasn't reached and the discussion stalled.

What players details are needed, age, date of signing, appearances? Do we need separate tables for goalscorers, assists, clean sheets and disciplinary record like for example those at 2015–16 Juventus F.C. season? Since a lot of this project content is about club season articles, I think this needs to be clear, because I don't see the any enforcement of what is ok and what is not.--Threeohsix (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging original debaters: @JMHamo:,@GiantSnowman:, @Mattythewhite:, @Struway2:, @Qed237:, @Spudgfsh:, @Koppapa:, @PeeJay2K3:, @CRwikiCA:, @Brudder Andrusha:, @Kingjeff:, @Lemonade51:, @Boddefan2009:, @Blethering Scot:

I thought assists were not to be kept since this was against consensus. Kingjeff (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Assists = definitely not; clean sheets and discipline = probably not. This is all due to definitions and sourcing. GiantSnowman 17:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

More prose and less stats is the best way to go. I would definately say no to assists, and the others has to be sourced if they should be kept. Also a lot of columns in tables like 2015–16 Juventus F.C. season#Squad information should be removed, such as "positions" (often disputed where a player is actually playing and matter of opinion), "date-of-birth" (if readers are interested, read the BLP article) and also "signed in", "contract until", "signed from" and "transfer fee" (these are not relevant to article for that season). Qed237 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to see current contract in the players infoboxes. // Psemmler (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And where does that information come from? Why is is notable? GiantSnowman 19:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That info is definitely not notable and definitely doesn't belong in a player's infobox -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the goalscorers table can be removed. Just tweak the very common Template:Extended football squad 2 player into sortable, and then you have a ranking of goalscorers. Regarding the squad information, in August 2014, the discussion pointed to a consensus to only have player name, nationality, position and appearances (basically what Template:Extended football squad 2 player does), which begs the question, why are templates like Fb si header still available?--Threeohsix (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Assists - drop like the plague. The definition is different from country to country, in some places the player who wins a penalty gets an assist, for being the last player before the goalscorer to touch the ball. The Premier League website itself only has incomplete records of assists. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with the season articles, mainly that they concentrate too much on the statistics and not enough on the prose of the explanation of the season.

1. statistics should be
   1. meaningful
   2. easy to source from more than one place
   3. easily maintainable
   4. unambiguous (and agreed by consensus)
2. all of the football boxes (collapsable or not) use bare links for the report (without a reference tag) so there is a significant amount of link rot potential within them. (take a look at this one

The season articles I've looked at recently have been much better than they were previously. The statistics should support the prose on the season in the article not the other way around.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This discussion didn't attract enough people, so it will disappear into the archive. From my idea, it's clearly established that can put anything you want in a season article, unless you intend to get it to GA. We currently only have about 50 GA in 9500 club season articles, so there's no real enforcement, of what is excessive or not.--Threeohsix (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Same Team?

Are not Đồng Tâm Long An F.C. and Long An F.C. basically the same team? Inter&anthro (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Đồng Tâm Long An F.C. says they're the same team, just under a new name. Needs a merge or maybe a history merge. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've redirected. GiantSnowman 07:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

GiantSnowman (or another admin), can you move the page to Long An F.C., as it's their current name. I don't have permission to move it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302:  Done GiantSnowman 20:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Does it pass?

Hi guys! I was wondering if Draft:Charlie Horton (footballer) would pass NFOOTY at this point in time. I'm not familiar enough with the sport to know if he's played on the professional level or not, but I figured you guys would. If he passes, can someone move it to the mainspace? Wikielite360 has done a very impressive job of fleshing the article out and improving things, so I also wanted to give them a shout out on here for his hard work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: From what I can see the footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in any tier 1 international match (senior matches) or played any matches in a WP:FPL (fully professional league). However, the article may still be notable if it passes WP:GNG, which is the question for this footballer. Without digging in to the sources, a quick look makes be think it passes WP:GNG but more input from other editors would be good. Qed237 (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with QED. If they'd played in any matches for any of the teams listed, they would pass WP:NFOOTY, but as they haven't actually played, they don't. Would need to check the sources to see if they pass WP:GNG, looks like they might well do. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Many of the sources are duplicates, and there are some which cite other Wikipedia articles. I can't find enough about Horton himself rather than being mentioned as part of the team to feel that he passes GNG. If this is pushed to mainspace, it would fail an AfD as TOOSOON. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello (Joseph2302) yes surely he has actually played. He has 4 caps for the U-23 national team. in May 2015, Horton played in the Toulon Tournament for the USA U23 team, which went on to achieve an overall 3rd place finish . Following on in the fall of 2015, Horton was selected as a player for the USA Olympic Qualifiers in Denver , Salt Lake City, and Kansas City Missouri.Finally, later in November 2015, he was called up to start in a friendly against Brazil. To date, Horton has earned four caps for USA U23 MNT. Wikielite360 (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

References

WP:NFOOTY explicitly excludes youth appearances: Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I read the article & its sources. Unless they've played in a fully-professional league or the proper United States national football team, then they don't pass WP:NFOOTY. The fact they've played 4 times for US U-23 is not enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above, he fails NFOOTY. The article itself is not bad in terms of its style and referencing, but the references are exclusively either to primary sources or to routine transfer reports. I would advise @Wikielite360: to flesh out the draft with more substantial third party reporting, i.e. interviews, dedicated articles on the players career to show wider GNG if possible. Fenix down (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Still on this, while not challenging anyone, Just making some inputs as well.

Charlie does play on a fully professional team. He presently plays for D.C. United. D.C. United is part of the US Major League Soccer. MLS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer) is covered and linked to under the fully professional team qualification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Men.27s_leagues

When scrolling down to Current Squad on the D.C. United page Charlie Horton is #30 listed as Goalkeeper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._United

Also, if the 18 year old Bailey Peacock who played goal keeper at Leeds qualifies than surely Charlie meets the requirements with 4 USA CAPS. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_Peacock-Farrell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikielite360 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Bailey_Peacock-Farrell actually played for Leeds, and therefore meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for footballers. Horton hasn't actually played for any club, and U-23 matches are not full international fixtures (and therefore not a Tier 1 match), therefore Horton does not meet notability guidelines for footballers. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

CONCACAF U-16 Championship

The CONCACAF U-17 Championship article says that before 1991, games were played U-16. Should these articles split?

Also if true, 1983 CONCACAF U-17 Championship, 1985 CONCACAF U-17 Championship, and 1987 CONCACAF U-17 Championship articles need renaming for obvious reasons and to wikilink to U-16 national teams (even though defunct), not to the current U-17 national teams they are currently linked to. 1988, is the only article where this isn't an issue. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Article should not be split. They are the same tournament, just that the age limit was increased. That also happened at the FIFA Youth world cups. -Koppapa (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Do reliable sources actually support this claim? Even if they do, I agree the split shouldn't be done, unless reliable sources suggest they are 2 different tournaments. That said, 1983 CONCACAF U-17 Championship, 1985 CONCACAF U-17 Championship, and 1987 CONCACAF U-17 Championship should be moved to 1983 CONCACAF U-16 Championship, 1985 CONCACAF U-16 Championship, and 1987 CONCACAF U-16 Championship, assuming they were actually U-16 tournaments. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

According to [14], the tournament used to be U-16s, as did the FIFA U-17 World Cup apparently. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It's the same with the UEFA U17 and U19 Championships. The main article is at the current agegroup, but the individual seasons use the historically accurate agegroup. So 2001 UEFA European Under-18 Championship, but 2002 UEFA European Under-19 Championship. They're the same tournament, just with different age regulations. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is certain, split or not, that those pages need to be moved from U17 to U16 during the respective years cited above. That should be the first step. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Kits

Good luck to the person who tries to design a kit graphic for CD Palencia Balompié's new kit...... ;-) [15] -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

A challenge for StuartGriffin93 if ever I saw one. Number 57 12:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, it looks like no-one ever implemented Cultural y Deportiva Leonesa's 2014 kit... Number 57 12:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this some sort of custom in Spain? Another one for the collection [16] '''tAD''' (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Omg! if it gets this advanced I'll never learn... Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Niklas Feierabend

There is an AfD for Niklas Feierabend here. Kingjeff (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina footballers in England

Yet another over categorization? Should it renamed to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina expatriate sportspeople in England? Matthew_hk tc 09:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Quite possibly. And use "Bosnian" rather than "Bosnia and Herzegovina" too. Number 57 09:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually all categories refered to football use "Bosnia and Herzegovina"... see Edin Džeko. Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina footballers, Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina international footballers or Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina expatriate footballers. There is also Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina football managers, etc. I also think it should be rather "Bosnian" instead of "Bosnia and Herzegovina" but I can't remember anymore why it was decided that way, but it is "Bosnia and Herzegovina" consistently in categories. FkpCascais (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo and its recent past

I think it would be usefull to clarify here the exact timming of Kosovo recent history so it would clear out doubts regarding how to display it in tables or in infoboxes as place of birth. Lets see, Kosovo was:

• before 1912, part of Ottoman Empire
• between 1912 and 1918, part of Kingdom of Serbia
• between 1918 till 1943, part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia
• between 1943 and 1992, a province of SR Serbia, belonging all to a country named SFR Yugoslavia
• between 1992 and 1999, a province of Serbia, belonging to a third reincarnation of Yugoslavia, the FR Yugoslavia
• In 1999 Kosovo War hapend, Kosovo becomes a Serbian province under UN protectorate.
• between 1999 and 2003, Kosovo still belongs to Serbia, subsequently FR Yugoslavia
• in 2003, FR Yugoslavia, formed by Serbia and Montenegro, changes its name to Serbia and Montenegro
• between 2003 and 2006, Kosovo ander UN administration is a Serbian province within state union of Serbia and Montenegro
• in 2006 Serbia and Montenegro split into 2 independent countries, Serbia (including Kosovo) and Montenegro
• between 2006 and 2008, Kosovo is a Serbian province under UN administration
• in 2008, Kosovo declares independence from Serbia

So basically, as country of birth, people born in Kosovo have as country:

• if born before 1992, SFR Yugoslavia
• if born between 1992 and 2003, FR Yugoslavia
• if born between 2003 and 2006, Serbia and Montenegro
• if born between 2006 and 2008, Serbia
• if born after 2008, it was not discussed yet, there is no consensus cause half world recognised Kosovo independece, half world still regards it as Serbian province under special administration.

What happends is that Kosovo-Albanian nationalists vandalise articles changing Yugoslavia to Kosovo, while Serbian nationalists change Yugoslavia to Serbia. So that is why often changes happend in infoboxes and one needs to be restoring Yugoslavia many times.

Hope this helped. FkpCascais (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016 squads

I have a question about this article, specifically Tom Lawrence of Wales and Andrej Kramaric of Croatia, both players are on loan from Leicester City yet are listed by their loaning club, the domestic campaign for both is over so should they not revert back to being listed by Leicester City? Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 02:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

When do their loans officially end? Are they over now or are they over on say the end of June (some loans do that)? If they are not technically over by the time the tournament starts then I would have them listed to the club they are loaned to and if not, their parent club. All depends on who they are registered with by the time the tournament starts in my opinion. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

IIRC both loans were "until the end of the season" and not specifically end of June. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 04:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Standard loans within the Football League/Premier League expire at midnight on the last day of the loaning club's playing season; so Mr Lawrence returned to being a Leicester player on 8 May, the day after Cardiff's last match. I don't know how loans to a club in another country work, but I'd guess they're the same.

Anyway, we don't need to theorise: the FAW announcement, which ought to appear somewhere on that squad article, lists Lawrence as a Leicester player. The Croatia announcement lists Mr Kramaric as a Hoffenheim player, which he may well have been when the list was drawn up. The squads aren't finalised until 31 May, and I imagine the clubs will be accurate then. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

International loans, like Kramaric from Leicester to Hoffenheim, are treated more like transfers (I think the phrase used is "temporary transfer"). Technically he won't become a Leicester player again until the English transfer window re-opens. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The English transfer window re-opens the day after a club's last fixture. Leicester have now finished their playing season, so assuming Hoffenheim have finished theirs, Mr Kramaric will now be a Leicester player again. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The window technically does not open till 1 July I believe. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That's the registration window, a club can sign a player at anytime they like. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 11:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see the Football League regulations on the matter, in particular the definition of Season at Section 1.1 here

Season means the period of the year commencing on the date of the first League Match and, for each Club, ending immediately after the completion of the Club's final fixture of the League Competition or, if the Club is participating in the Play-Offs, the final Play-Off match for that Club.

and the definition of Transfer Window at Section 41.6.2 here.

Transfer Window shall mean either:

(a) the period commencing at midnight on the last day of the immediately preceding Season (and for the purposes of this Regulation 41.6.2(a) only, those Clubs participating in Play-off matches shall be regarded as having completed their Season notwithstanding their participation in such Play-off matches, but this exception is subject always to Regulation 41.5) and ending at midnight on the 31 August next following; or

(b) the period commencing at midnight on the 31 December and ending at midnight on the 31 January next following.

Sentence (a) is the one that applies to the summer window. The Premier League is the same, but their rules are in a massive PDF file.

It's a myth that the window doesn't open until 1 July. Players can't move on a Bosman until 1 July, because in the Football League/Premier League, standard contacts expire on 30 June, but that's all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of when exactly the cut-off point for loans ending is, I would still expect to see the parent club listed in these tables. Perhaps if anyone is actually on loan at the time, the club column could list them as "Club X (on loan at Club Y)". Number 57 12:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

In time this should resolve itself - when squads are made official on May 31st, I suggest we list as per the Euro 2016 website. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

An unregistered user has now removed all the squad numbers that were listed, I really do think they need to change Wiki so that you need an account to edit. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 18:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

NextGen Series

Hi everyone, I wanted to ask how to best handle the naming of the NextGen Series. The previous competition has been abandoned and replaced with the UEFA Youth League. Since 2016 however, AFC Ajax have taken over the name to rebrand the Copa Amsterdam, hence chaining the name of their U19 knock out tournament. The Copa Amsterdam is now known as the NextGen Series. The Copa Amsterdam page should be renamed to the current name of the tournament. But I would like to ask for help suggestion how to rename the pages. I thought maybe renaming the former tournament to NextGen Series (2011-13) and simply moving the Copa Amsterdam page to NextGen Series, but I would love to hear the input from everyone on this. Thank you for your time. (Subzzee (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC))

It sounds a bit similar to the situation with the Ballon d'Or (1956–2009), FIFA Ballon d'Or & FIFA World Player of the Year. I definitely think renaming the article to NextGen Series (2011-13) is a good idea, not sure about moving Copa Amsterdam article to the new location, are you sure it's just a name change and shouldn't be considered a new tournament? Gman83 (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your response, nothing has changed in the tournament except the name, it is still the same format, still hosted in conjunction with the sports Weekend in Amsterdam and still broadcasted on the same channel. The only change of the tournament is the name. Ajax have taken over the NextGen Series name for their Copa Amsterdam tournament. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC))

I guess you can go ahead and make the change. If you foresee any objection, according to WP:TITLECHANGES: "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made." So you might consider that, although that seems to have a massive backlog so that could take a while. I would just go ahead and make the move. Gman83 (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have moved the NextGen Series page to NextGen Series (2011-13), but I do not have permission to move the Copa Amsterdam article to NextGen Series. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

Sponsors?

Dear football enthusiasts: Is it appropriate for an article about a football team to include information about its sponsors? for example, Melbourne Victory FC (W-League). Doesn't that promote the sponsoring companies?—Anne Delong (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that it does, and I also am not convinced about the notability of such material. Number 57 09:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it promotes the companies, but I do think the information is trivial and not suited to be in the article for that reason...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fairly standard practice to include some sponsorship information in the section that describes the team's colours, badges and kit/uniform, even in featured articles. See e.g. York City F.C.#Club identity, Gillingham F.C.#Colours and crest. I'm not keen on having a separate section just for current sponsors, particularly if it's positioned so high up a quite small article like the one mentioned. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it depends. Some sponsors have or have had long standing relationships with clubs - Eddie Stobart was on Carlisle United shirts for 20 years and Walkers Crisps on Leicester City shirts for 14, and the companies retain relationships with the teams. I'd say anything of over a decade has a long standing influence on a club.

A table of shirt sponsors is probably just about relevant, but does border on trivia. Going beyond main shirt sponsor would also do so, again unless there's a particular relevance.

That specific entry at Melbourne Victory falls short of any of the above descriptions, however.--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Joseph2302 has edited that section now. Thanks.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)